Search results

Make sure we didn't lose? But it was the same XI that very much lost in Brisbane. The best way to avoid defeat is to give yourself the best chance of winning. You are absolutely right that we didn't know we'd bat first, and had we batted first in Brisbane that test would have been closer, BUT...

I think Giles was more effective in 2005, because the bowling attack around him was so strong. We had 4 bowlers in Harmy, Hoggard, Freddie and Jones, all of whom could skittle a side out, and the batsman had to be wary of them all. That therefore left Giles as the only bowler they felt they...

Has anyone anything to justify Giles playing instead of Monty yet? No, nor have I. I don’t think anyone can argue with the fact that Monty is the better spinner, so we are seeing Giles play for his superior batting and fielding. Hmm, the drop of Ponting doesn’t help his case, but I wonder if...

But the point is that Fletcher and Flintoff would appear to have left Monty out because of his inferior batting and fielding when compared to Giles - it's certainly not based on bowling! So Giles simply HAS to do better, and that means not dropping catches. I fear that the decision to play...

I think you've heard wrong. He's done well on tours before, did you see him in the West Indies. Nah, he's a rhythm bowler, and sometimes it's just not clicking. My fear is that it was Troy Cooley who was able to sort him out whenever he lost his action in the past.

Monty in, Giles out, for me. I'd also be tempted to play Mahommod for Anderson, but having said that I think the fact that we tend to stick by players rather than giving them one Test and then out, has helped us over the last few years, so wouldn't object to Jimmy getting 3 Tests to see what...