Looks Like Monty's got the nod

[number11]

Monty was picked ahead of Giles for the final tour game before the test, which must be a strong indication that he will start next week. First positive move since the squad has been out there, though will be interesting to see how the batting performs with a weak looking order.

More worrying was Harmison missed the game with a side strain.

[Shrimper2thecore]

First day batting wise not great, okay not long in, but losing Strauss on his second ball is not good warm up practise is it!

Bowlers put in a good performance apparently

[Hong Kong Blue]

Strauss has already hit two 50s in his two previous innings, so I'm not so concerned about him. Ian Bell is the big worry, as he has only faced two balls on tour to date.

The schedule is absolutely ridiculous. England will be going into this game completely undercooked yet again.

Lose a one-dayer at the end and give them an extra warm-up game.

[Bluesmanager]

What's up with 15 ODIs anyway?

[Hong Kong Blue]

Agnew was saying on the radio that the consensus is increasingly that Giles will get the nod.

The situation he used to justify it was England 240-6 with Flintoff 20* when Hoggard strolls to the crease.

I'd love to have Giles' no.8 batting and just as significantly his safe hands in the gully. With Trescothick gone, England have lost their best catcher but at the same time I'd be loathed to lose Monty's bowling.

I think I'd probably go for Monty, as I feel he can offer the greatest control. Harmy is too erratic, Jimmy Anderson can be as well, Freddie should be used in short spells leaving only Hoggy as a reliable stock bowler. If Monty can stem the runs at one end, whilst still applying pressure it'll enable England to apply pressure at both ends. Hoggard, Harmison, Panesar and Anderson as your 8, 9,10 and 11 is a worrying prospect but I think I'd want Monty's bowling.

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ Nov. 22 2006,10:35)]I think I'd probably go for Monty, as I feel he can offer the greatest control. Harmy is too erratic, Jimmy Anderson can be as well, Freddie should be used in short spells leaving only Hoggy as a reliable stock bowler. If Monty can stem the runs at one end, whilst still applying pressure it'll enable England to apply pressure at both ends. Hoggard, Harmison, Panesar and Anderson as your 8, 9,10 and 11 is a worrying prospect but I think I'd want Monty's bowling.
So would I... but I just have the gut feeling that Fletcher will go with the King of Spain. Safety first, and all that...

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[King of Berks]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Nov. 22 2006,13:42)]
Quote[/b] (Hong Kong Blue @ Nov. 22 2006,10:35)]I think I'd probably go for Monty, as I feel he can offer the greatest control. Harmy is too erratic, Jimmy Anderson can be as well, Freddie should be used in short spells leaving only Hoggy as a reliable stock bowler. If Monty can stem the runs at one end, whilst still applying pressure it'll enable England to apply pressure at both ends. Hoggard, Harmison, Panesar and Anderson as your 8, 9,10 and 11 is a worrying prospect but I think I'd want Monty's bowling.
So would I... but I just have the gut feeling that Fletcher will go with the King of Spain. *Safety first, and all that...

http://www.shrimperzone.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Looks like you were right Matt, and a crying shame in my opinion.

Isn't it a bit ironic that we're building a test team full of "all rounders" akin to a one day side, yet our one day team are, to put it bluntly, of chocolate fireguard standard?

Personally, I think we need to look at what we actually want from each position, re fielding, bowling etc. Ok, a 20 at No 8 can actually give you 60 runs, but how many runs could be saved by a better bowler? It's a tough call, but I've always been a Tuffnell man rather that Crofty one, and thats a rarity around here!