[quote author=leftpeg link=topic=33622.msg905171#msg905171 date=1247510748]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=33622.msg904777#msg904777 date=1247443657]
England got away with fucking muder there. Hark at all these people clamouring for paper to cover the cracks; 'Harmison in for Monty, we need pace!'
Bigger picture folks. You were outplayed, outthought, outfought, and you only just got what you were looking for - not to lose.
The defining moment of the whole test was the last bout of play at the end of day one; England scoring for fun, tails up, the Australians body langauge shot to pieces, and all teh ascendancy with the hosts. The tourists were on the ropes, and what does Strauss do? Sends in a nightwatchman and irrevocably shifts the momentum. You could just see Strauss' thinking - 'Christ, look what we've got here, lets not give it away'. Instead of piling on the pressure and looking to win the game, he took the opportunity of not losing. Not in one million years would Ponting have backed off like that.
For me, england have too many weaknesses. So if you take Panesar out, that leaves you with Swann as your spin option for Lords. How many wickets did he take over the last 5 days exactly? How many wickets did Freddie 'would everyone please look at me I just took a wicket!' Flintoff have by the end of the test? KP? Alastair fucking Cook?
You can be happy with the efforts of Anderson, Collingwood, and Prior. That's yer lot.
Australia on the other hand have the best bowler on the field in Hilfenhaus, have Hauritz taking wickets of top-order batsmen, could have scored 1000 runs in one innings if they'd wanted, have the far FAR better captain, and did all this after losing the fucking toss.
This is Australia's Ashes to lose.
[/quote]
So if bringing Harmison in for Monty is papering over the cracks and only Anderson, Collingwood and Prior emerge with any credit, what would you do Ryan? Make 8 changes, including the captain? The fact is that since Nasser's days as captain, England have been at their best when there's been stability in the squad - when the batters don't think they're out of the side for one bad test. The batting line up in this test was probably as good as we have right now. Similarly, if Flintoff's fit, the bowling would be ok with an on-form Harmison in for an out of form Monty. Plus, we won't need two spinners at Lords. England don't often play well there, but when we have, it's been when we've had a pace-dominated attack. Australia totally dominated this match but England don't need to panic just yet.
[/quote]
Been away for a few days so just seeing this now Peggy.
I wasn't advocating wholesale changes mate, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. I was responding tto all of those who'd watched the first test unfold and them jumped up with "Monty out, Harmy in" as their quickfix. It's painfully obvious that a change in the bowling attack is akin to lipstick on a pig.
England were totally outclassed in just about every department, and to try and now win this Series is going to take a shift in thought, attack, and captaincy that goes way beyond taking out a spinner for the unpredictable Harmison.
