I would also play Tremlett. Bresnan can't really play as part of a four man attack - I see him more of a batsman bowler than a bowler batsman.
The all in one Consolidatorised Cricket Thread Page 7
Quote: bigfella @ December 9 2010, 11:23 AM GMTI would also play Tremlett. Bresnan can't really play as part of a four man attack - I see him more of a batsman bowler than a bowler batsman.
I'd describe him as someone who bats a bit, bowls a bit. Don't think he's strong enough in either to justify a place in the Test team. As you say, certainly not in a 4 man attack.
It doesn't matter who is the best bowler. They will pick Bresnan because he can bat. Although the team has been playing great, positive cricket, selection policy is always conservative. They are one nil up so they will pick a team to avoid defeat in the first instance
I think he is a bit stronger than that in English conditions - but I know what you are saying.
Anyway Tremlett it is then for us. I'm sure he will end up getting the nod.
Quote: Badge @ December 9 2010, 11:30 AM GMTIt doesn't matter who is the best bowler. They will pick Bresnan because he can bat. Although the team has been playing great, positive cricket, selection policy is always conservative. They are one nil up so they will pick a team to avoid defeat in the first instance
There is always that.
But I don't think so in this case. Flower knows the WACA has bounce. Tremlett is 8 foot 5.
Quote: bigfella @ December 9 2010, 11:31 AM GMTI think he is a bit stronger than that in English conditions - but I know what you are saying.
Anyway Tremlett it is then for us. I'm sure he will end up getting the nod.
There is always that.
But I don't think so in this case. Flower knows the WACA has bounce. Tremlett is 8 foot 5.
Hmmm. I can see the selectors' aversion to a tail of Anderson, Finn and Tremlett. Three number elevens there. But on balance, I hope they go with Tremlett. It's our bowling attack which is the major difference between the two sides, and it seems madness to wilfully weaken it.
I would love it if they brought Shane Warne back into the equation. That would be worth watching. I do think that rumours of his return are just a bit of publicity and/or celeb nonsense however.
I'll have a virtual pound on it that they pick Bresnan. If you want to double up, the Aussies will retain North.
Quote: Badge @ December 9 2010, 12:08 PM GMTI'll have a virtual pound on it that they pick Bresnan. If you want to double up, the Aussies will retain North.
I'll see your virtual pound. But I agree they'll keep North. I've got more chance of playing in the next test than Doherty though.
Quote: Rob H @ December 9 2010, 11:42 AM GMTHmmm. I can see the selectors' aversion to a tail of Anderson, Finn and Tremlett. Three number elevens there. But on balance, I hope they go with Tremlett. It's our bowling attack which is the major difference between the two sides, and it seems madness to wilfully weaken it.
They aren't number 11's in the Devon Malcom or Phil Tuffnell mode though are they. You can trust Jimmy to block if you need it.
Quote: Badge @ December 9 2010, 12:08 PM GMTI'll have a virtual pound on it that they pick Bresnan. If you want to double up, the Aussies will retain North.
I'll have that pound with you as well. He simply can't play as part of a four man attack in Oz. I quite like the idea of him coming into the team in place of Colly when he retires. Move Bell and Prior one place up the order and then having Bresnan, Broad and Swann means there is quite a bit of batting still.
As for North. The Aussies can't replace the whole team can they! They already have one enforced change to make at the top of the order. They already have dropped two fast bowlers - their spinner also has to go.
The only game of cricket I ever enjoyed watching was in an episode of Dad's Army
Quote: Will Cam @ December 9 2010, 12:54 PM GMTThe only game of cricket I ever enjoyed watching was in an episode of Dad's Army
It's a thinking man's game Will, so I can understand that.
Quote: bigfella @ December 9 2010, 12:54 PM GMTThey aren't number 11's in the Devon Malcom or Phil Tuffnell mode though are they. You can trust Jimmy to block if you need it.
True enough, though that's not saying much really. Mind you, the Aussies wouldn't have done much worse with Malcolm and Tufnell opening the batting. 
Tremlett for me also, but that Jonathan Agnew said he expected Bresnan to replace Broad, and knowing England's cautious approach, I think he might. I don't agree with it though, Tremlett suits Perth, is unlucky not to have more caps and is in top form now.
Having said that, Bresnan does hit the ground hard too, so it's probably not a disaster if he plays.
If they weren't so ridiculously protective of a fading Paul Collingwood I'd think about two changes. With four seamers and Swan I don't see Australia batting for long and this England batting order has nothing to fear at all from a third rate Oz bowling line up. Lets not consolidate, lets take Australia to the cleaners, this is a golden opportunity to let them know what it feels like. Two England changes for me but I don't see it happening.
I think two great innings in a row doesn't cover up that this batting line up has not fired before then for... ages. Including the first innings of this series. If they all play well then there's no problem, but that's rare - we've just had 2 rare events. Omit Colly at your peril.
Quote: Badge @ December 9 2010, 8:52 PM GMTOmit Colly at your peril.
Agreed, but shouldn't Bell get the number 5 slot ahead of Colly at 6?
Whether or not these England batting performances are rare (and they are, but only in the recent historical sense of England playing Australia), they certainly have nothing to fear from the Australian bowling attack. That morning session where England batted 9 overs for 69 runs before declaring really tells you a lot about where Australia are in the field. They looked utterly defeated and clueless. Unless the Australian bowling attack improves quickly and massively, then England's batting order have little to fear, I feel. 