If England are paranoid enough about their batting to play Giles ahead of Panesar (which is looking like a pretty stupid idea after the first day's play), shouldn't they have picked the following team instead:
Strauss, Cook, Joyce, Collingwood, Bell, Pietersen, Flintoff, Read, Hoggard, Harmison, Panesar?
That way, we'd have 7 batsmen, the best keeper, the most dangerous bowler, 3 proper seamers and 3 regular part-time bowlers who can take on a few overs per innings.
Instead, we've got 6.5 batsmen, a poor keeper, an innocuous "spinner" and 3 number 11 batsmen - one of whom has hardly bowled so far...if Jones and Giles don't make 50s at least in both innings, then it probably wasn't worth playing them in front of Read and Panesar.
2006-11-23
02:31:54
·
5 answers
·
asked by
BOOBOO
5