Morning Ormi. You'll struggle to get to work this morning with all the Watto ticker-tape in the streets. Thing with Woakes is that he is not a Test level 3rd seamer. Stats don't lie but they don't tell the whole truth either. Flintoff's figures do not reflect the contribution he made in his career. Look at 2009, apart from Lords he hardly ook a wicket but he bowled fantastically. Really quick and aggressive, the bowlers at the other end benefited from his excellent pace and control. Just watched Willis here on Sky and he agrees with me and Boycott, third seamer had to be Tremlett or Finn.
Morning Ormi. You'll struggle to get to work this morning with all the Watto ticker-tape in the streets. Thing with Woakes is that he is not a Test level 3rd seamer. Stats don't lie but they don't tell the whole truth either. Flintoff's figures do not reflect the contribution he made in his career. Look at 2009, apart from Lords he hardly ook a wicket but he bowled fantastically. Really quick and aggressive, the bowlers at the other end benefited from his excellent pace and control. Just watched Willis here on Sky and he agrees with me and Boycott, third seamer had to be Tremlett or Finn.
Watson is not very well liked here, many people think he is a selfish player and a disruptive influence in the team.
People are actually pissed off that he scored the ton because there is now no way then can force him out of the team and let Clarke - who Watson despises - run the team by himself.
As for Woakes, he is probably a fourth seamer like Watson rather than a third-seamer.
However, the biggest mystery is picking Kerrigan, if its turning then Swann will bowl them out anyway, you don't need a second spinner to do that.
From what I saw of the first three hours the pitch would have suited Tremlett or Finn as Broad bowled beautifully on it.
A complete cock up by Flower and Co., Kerrigan will be the new Darren Pattinson, albeit actually English.
Funnily enough in his post match interview Watson said how he had worked really hard on his well documented technical flaws and he mentioned how much Clarke had helped him address them.
Funnily enough in his post match interview Watson said how he had worked really hard on his well documented technical flaws and he mentioned how much Clarke had helped him address them.
Yes, they are really close mates, just ask them!
Basically, Watson knows that he is in the last chance saloon in terms of behaviour, he can't afford another homework gate fiasco.
From what I have seen of Woakes bowling at international level, he has looked like cannon fodder. However, he is young, looks a very capable bat and clearly has some ability with the ball (all be that on county cricket result pitches). So in that respect, with Bresnan injured I can see why he has been picked.
However the selection of Kerrigan has really miffed me. Perhaps the selectors read the pitch wrong, though it was clear to see after Broad bowled his hostile spell that we were crying out for a Finn or Tremlett to continue.
I dont understand why we need a 2nd specialist spinner when we have root and kp that are more than capable if the pitch turns into a raging bunsen!
As for Woakes...i can understand his selection. England have lacked a genuine all rounder since freddie flintoff...so giving the lad a try isnt a bad idea, although the pitch at the oval will not be helping his bowling. Would be nice for him to get a few wickets and some runs because like others have said, he is a good player
Woakes from memory has gone all round the park when bowling for England almost every time I've seen him. That includes all formats. He has hardly set the world on fire with the bat either.
He simply isn't a good enough bowler to be considered a 3rd seemer.
As for the young spinner, oh dear, I faced better playing pub cricket down in kent.
Hoping Kerrigan can do better today. Hate to see someone have a day like that, especially an Englishman on debut. Did find the selections for this test very strange though. I'd have gone straight in with Tremlett for Bresnan and maybe Woakes for Bairstow.
Kerrigan is not a shite bowler although not sure exactly why picked.
He just froze and had really bad day. It happens - Graham Gooch got 2 ducks on his debut.
Anyone remember the bowler that fell to pieces in natwest final a few years back? Had won several MOM awards in previous rounds then bowled 3 wides in first over then let one go between his legs for 4 runs when fielding in 2nd over and took about 12 balls to complete his 2nd over before being taken out of the game.
Kerrigan is certainly a much better bowler than he showed yesterday, and the obvious choice for a SLA in the absence of Monty, IF you want to play 2 spinners. It's perhaps unfortunate that Root and KP both bowl part time off spinners as well, as it's nice to have someone who can spin the ball the other way to Swann.
When Woakes has bowled in ODI and T20 internationals, I've heard it said that his style of bowling was more suited to the red ball game. Well I didn't see much evidence of it yesterday, as he's not that fast and doesn't seem to move the ball around enough to be anything more than a 4th holding seamer (like Watson is for Australia).
tbf Woakes and Kerrigan were very nervous, and straight away got clobbered by a high-flying Watson. I've heard that Kerrigan gives a four ball every over... Lets give them a chance. Warne didn't exactly set the world alight on debut, neither did Graham Gooch... I'm not saying they are in the same class, but this abuse (less so on this site) they are getting when we are 3-0 up against the Aussies, series and ashes in the bag is ridiculous.
I express no opinion on Woakes' ability, or lack thereof, to make it in test cricket.
However, as I said elsewhere, he has played a lot of England Lions cricket and test cricket is the next step up. There was a vacancy for a bowling all rounder because of Bresnan's injury and Woakes, as an English Lion, is deemed next in line.
His selection is therefore reasonable in the circumstances and not disrespectful at all.
Len, I've just listened to Geoff Boycott's summing up of the day on TMS. Now I know you respect his opinion on cricket more than anyone else, you've stated that on here, have a listen. Basically as far as the selection and make up of the side is concerned he agrees with me. 100%. In fact I thought it was me talking at one point! Edit. You can hear Fiery on 5Live at half time in the Arsenal game later tonight.
There are two issues here.
The first is that someone (you I think) above said that the choice of Woakes and Kerrigan was disrespectful and smacked of just having a look at players. My point is that Woakes in particular is the logical replacement for Bresnan and therefore not disrespectful.
As for Kerrigan if we want to play a slow left armer who else is there following "pissgate?"
Cosker, Keedy perhaps but if we go down that geriatric route we may as well ask Deadly to get his boots out of the loft!
In short, given the premise of the particular structure of the side, they are both logical selections.
Mention of the structure of the side leads to the second issue and here there is room for debate. Finn certainly is the best bowler I've ever seen at knocking stumps over and, when he is not doing that, can bowl a decent pacy ball as can Tremlett so there is a case for playing one or the other certainly. However the English batting can be flaky even in a successful series like this so the "bowling all rounder" school of thought does have some merit.
Woakes was bowling at about 82-85mph, so pace is not a problem.
The bloke bowled 15-5-52-0 - going at 3.5 per over is hardly a bloody disaster, people going well OTT about the bloke, I have a feeling he could surprise a few people.
I've only just seen the highlights. I would have bowled better SLA than Kerrigan, and I'm right armed and I'm 48 and I'm overweight and I haven't bowled in a competitive match for 18 years but believe me I'd have done better. In fact my mates 10 year old son would have been far tidier.
He would indeed - but, there again, he has no fear because he is only 10. And also, of course, because he has the best coach and shrink money can't buy ;-)
Player who fell apart in the NatWest final was Scott Boswell. Had an extremely bizarre action that was liable to fall apart completely under any pressure. He was also bowling to Marcus Trescothick, which can't have helped.
The obvious other SLA is not Cosker or Keedy but Danny Briggs, except that he's pretty much the epitomy of a dull darter who'll not trouble a top-class Test batsman in a thousand years and truthfully speaking a one-day specialist at present.
Can't think of many other realistic spin options. Rashid's on fire this season but not, alas, with the ball. Kerrigan's quite clearly the most potent attacking spinner in the land other than Swann and arguably Panesar, just such a shame he fell apart so dramatically. Why not go out there and give it a rip ffs? Ah, nerves...
I express no opinion on Woakes' ability, or lack thereof, to make it in test cricket.
However, as I said elsewhere, he has played a lot of England Lions cricket and test cricket is the next step up. There was a vacancy for a bowling all rounder because of Bresnan's injury and Woakes, as an English Lion, is deemed next in line.
His selection is therefore reasonable in the circumstances and not disrespectful at all.
Len, I've just listened to Geoff Boycott's summing up of the day on TMS. Now I know you respect his opinion on cricket more than anyone else, you've stated that on here, have a listen. Basically as far as the selection and make up of the side is concerned he agrees with me. 100%. In fact I thought it was me talking at one point! Edit. You can hear Fiery on 5Live at half time in the Arsenal game later tonight.
There are two issues here.
The first is that someone (you I think) above said that the choice of Woakes and Kerrigan was disrespectful and smacked of just having a look at players. My point is that Woakes in particular is the logical replacement for Bresnan and therefore not disrespectful.
As for Kerrigan if we want to play a slow left armer who else is there following "pissgate?"
Cosker, Keedy perhaps but if we go down that geriatric route we may as well ask Deadly to get his boots out of the loft!
In short, given the premise of the particular structure of the side, they are both logical selections.
Mention of the structure of the side leads to the second issue and here there is room for debate. Finn certainly is the best bowler I've ever seen at knocking stumps over and, when he is not doing that, can bowl a decent pacy ball as can Tremlett so there is a case for playing one or the other certainly. However the English batting can be flaky even in a successful series like this so the "bowling all rounder" school of thought does have some merit.
Just two issues Len. 1) It's not the selection of those players personally. It's about giving people a "run out" in a Test Match. That's what this is, however you want to dress it up. Bob Willis, Michael Vaughn and Phil Tufnel have all said exactly the same.
2) You are doing what you always do with eveyone on here, you either haven't read what I've written or you simply don't understand it.
I don't think it helped Kerrigan to only be told yesterday at 9.30am that he was playing. His inclusion in the squad was seen by most as a chance to get a feel of the build up to a Test etc. Something that England have done for some time and probably a very good thing.
I express no opinion on Woakes' ability, or lack thereof, to make it in test cricket.
However, as I said elsewhere, he has played a lot of England Lions cricket and test cricket is the next step up. There was a vacancy for a bowling all rounder because of Bresnan's injury and Woakes, as an English Lion, is deemed next in line.
His selection is therefore reasonable in the circumstances and not disrespectful at all.
Len, I've just listened to Geoff Boycott's summing up of the day on TMS. Now I know you respect his opinion on cricket more than anyone else, you've stated that on here, have a listen. Basically as far as the selection and make up of the side is concerned he agrees with me. 100%. In fact I thought it was me talking at one point! Edit. You can hear Fiery on 5Live at half time in the Arsenal game later tonight.
There are two issues here.
The first is that someone (you I think) above said that the choice of Woakes and Kerrigan was disrespectful and smacked of just having a look at players. My point is that Woakes in particular is the logical replacement for Bresnan and therefore not disrespectful.
As for Kerrigan if we want to play a slow left armer who else is there following "pissgate?"
Cosker, Keedy perhaps but if we go down that geriatric route we may as well ask Deadly to get his boots out of the loft!
In short, given the premise of the particular structure of the side, they are both logical selections.
Mention of the structure of the side leads to the second issue and here there is room for debate. Finn certainly is the best bowler I've ever seen at knocking stumps over and, when he is not doing that, can bowl a decent pacy ball as can Tremlett so there is a case for playing one or the other certainly. However the English batting can be flaky even in a successful series like this so the "bowling all rounder" school of thought does have some merit.
Just two issues Len. 1) It's not the selection of those players personally. It's about giving people a "run out" in a Test Match. That's what this is, however you want to dress it up. Bob Willis, Michael Vaughn and Phil Tufnel have all said exactly the same.
2) You are doing what you always do with eveyone on here, you either haven't read what I've written or you simply don't understand it.
I've read what you've written. You want to bat Broad at 7 and play Finn or Tremlett.
I've said that there is a case for that but I can understand why the selectors have rejected it.
Would Finn or Tremlett have stayed with Root as nightwatchman like Bresnan did?
That 38 he scored was worth so much more because of the time he stuck around with Root and without question enabled us to win that test.
Pietersons catch to dismiss Watson was brilliant, especially as it was later in the day than when he totally lost another shot whilst fielding in the deep.
I express no opinion on Woakes' ability, or lack thereof, to make it in test cricket.
However, as I said elsewhere, he has played a lot of England Lions cricket and test cricket is the next step up. There was a vacancy for a bowling all rounder because of Bresnan's injury and Woakes, as an English Lion, is deemed next in line.
His selection is therefore reasonable in the circumstances and not disrespectful at all.
Len, I've just listened to Geoff Boycott's summing up of the day on TMS. Now I know you respect his opinion on cricket more than anyone else, you've stated that on here, have a listen. Basically as far as the selection and make up of the side is concerned he agrees with me. 100%. In fact I thought it was me talking at one point! Edit. You can hear Fiery on 5Live at half time in the Arsenal game later tonight.
There are two issues here.
The first is that someone (you I think) above said that the choice of Woakes and Kerrigan was disrespectful and smacked of just having a look at players. My point is that Woakes in particular is the logical replacement for Bresnan and therefore not disrespectful.
As for Kerrigan if we want to play a slow left armer who else is there following "pissgate?"
Cosker, Keedy perhaps but if we go down that geriatric route we may as well ask Deadly to get his boots out of the loft!
In short, given the premise of the particular structure of the side, they are both logical selections.
Mention of the structure of the side leads to the second issue and here there is room for debate. Finn certainly is the best bowler I've ever seen at knocking stumps over and, when he is not doing that, can bowl a decent pacy ball as can Tremlett so there is a case for playing one or the other certainly. However the English batting can be flaky even in a successful series like this so the "bowling all rounder" school of thought does have some merit.
Just two issues Len. 1) It's not the selection of those players personally. It's about giving people a "run out" in a Test Match. That's what this is, however you want to dress it up. Bob Willis, Michael Vaughn and Phil Tufnel have all said exactly the same.
2) You are doing what you always do with eveyone on here, you either haven't read what I've written or you simply don't understand it.
I've read what you've written. You want to bat Broad at 7 and play Finn or Tremlett.
I've said that there is a case for that but I can understand why the selectors have rejected it.
Would Finn or Tremlett have stayed with Root as nightwatchman like Bresnan did?
That 38 he scored was worth so much more because of the time he stuck around with Root and without question enabled us to win that test.
Pietersons catch to dismiss Watson was brilliant, especially as it was later in the day than when he totally lost another shot whilst fielding in the deep.
Yes, it was typical that Broad bowled some beauties with no luck, but gets his wicket caught in the deep from a blinding catch!
Comments
Thing with Woakes is that he is not a Test level 3rd seamer. Stats don't lie but they don't tell the whole truth either. Flintoff's figures do not reflect the contribution he made in his career. Look at 2009, apart from Lords he hardly ook a wicket but he bowled fantastically. Really quick and aggressive, the bowlers at the other end benefited from his excellent pace and control.
Just watched Willis here on Sky and he agrees with me and Boycott, third seamer had to be Tremlett or Finn.
People are actually pissed off that he scored the ton because there is now no way then can force him out of the team and let Clarke - who Watson despises - run the team by himself.
As for Woakes, he is probably a fourth seamer like Watson rather than a third-seamer.
However, the biggest mystery is picking Kerrigan, if its turning then Swann will bowl them out anyway, you don't need a second spinner to do that.
From what I saw of the first three hours the pitch would have suited Tremlett or Finn as Broad bowled beautifully on it.
A complete cock up by Flower and Co., Kerrigan will be the new Darren Pattinson, albeit actually English.
Basically, Watson knows that he is in the last chance saloon in terms of behaviour, he can't afford another homework gate fiasco.
However the selection of Kerrigan has really miffed me. Perhaps the selectors read the pitch wrong, though it was clear to see after Broad bowled his hostile spell that we were crying out for a Finn or Tremlett to continue.
As for Woakes...i can understand his selection. England have lacked a genuine all rounder since freddie flintoff...so giving the lad a try isnt a bad idea, although the pitch at the oval will not be helping his bowling. Would be nice for him to get a few wickets and some runs because like others have said, he is a good player
He simply isn't a good enough bowler to be considered a 3rd seemer.
As for the young spinner, oh dear, I faced better playing pub cricket down in kent.
He just froze and had really bad day.
It happens - Graham Gooch got 2 ducks on his debut.
Anyone remember the bowler that fell to pieces in natwest final a few years back?
Had won several MOM awards in previous rounds then bowled 3 wides in first over then let one go between his legs for 4 runs when fielding in 2nd over and took about 12 balls to complete his 2nd over before being taken out of the game.
Sometimes nerves do funny things to you.
When Woakes has bowled in ODI and T20 internationals, I've heard it said that his style of bowling was more suited to the red ball game. Well I didn't see much evidence of it yesterday, as he's not that fast and doesn't seem to move the ball around enough to be anything more than a 4th holding seamer (like Watson is for Australia).
The first is that someone (you I think) above said that the choice of Woakes and Kerrigan was disrespectful and smacked of just having a look at players. My point is that Woakes in particular is the logical replacement for Bresnan and therefore not disrespectful.
As for Kerrigan if we want to play a slow left armer who else is there following "pissgate?"
Cosker, Keedy perhaps but if we go down that geriatric route we may as well ask Deadly to get his boots out of the loft!
In short, given the premise of the particular structure of the side, they are both logical selections.
Mention of the structure of the side leads to the second issue and here there is room for debate. Finn certainly is the best bowler I've ever seen at knocking stumps over and, when he is not doing that, can bowl a decent pacy ball as can Tremlett so there is a case for playing one or the other certainly. However the English batting can be flaky even in a successful series like this so the "bowling all rounder" school of thought does have some merit.
The bloke bowled 15-5-52-0 - going at 3.5 per over is hardly a bloody disaster, people going well OTT about the bloke, I have a feeling he could surprise a few people.
The obvious other SLA is not Cosker or Keedy but Danny Briggs, except that he's pretty much the epitomy of a dull darter who'll not trouble a top-class Test batsman in a thousand years and truthfully speaking a one-day specialist at present.
Can't think of many other realistic spin options. Rashid's on fire this season but not, alas, with the ball. Kerrigan's quite clearly the most potent attacking spinner in the land other than Swann and arguably Panesar, just such a shame he fell apart so dramatically. Why not go out there and give it a rip ffs? Ah, nerves...
1) It's not the selection of those players personally. It's about giving people a "run out" in a Test Match. That's what this is, however you want to dress it up. Bob Willis, Michael Vaughn and Phil Tufnel have all said exactly the same.
2) You are doing what you always do with eveyone on here, you either haven't read what I've written or you simply don't understand it.
I've said that there is a case for that but I can understand why the selectors have rejected it.
Would Finn or Tremlett have stayed with Root as nightwatchman like Bresnan did?
That 38 he scored was worth so much more because of the time he stuck around with Root and without question enabled us to win that test.