England need another middle-order batsman in the lineup
And I wrote this well before they were struggling. They're lucky to get to 209, but 138/7 is a clear sign that their middle order is too brittle. My issue with their lineup is that there are not enough specialist batsmen. I feel Flintoff bats too high up. 4 down is not appropriate enough position for him. I feel that they are missing a genuine middle order stroke maker at 4 down. If they get rid of Dalrymple for example, (though in all honesty, Michael Vaughan should go), they still will have 5 bowlers, but an added batsmen. Who will that fellow be? Well Strauss obviously can then open while Joyce can then bat somewhere else.
I know a bunch of England fans read this blog. What do you guys think? Inserting another batsman right after Collingwood extends the middle order, and allows for Flintoff to play his strokes late in the game.
3 comments:
Move Dalrymple to 4, Pieterson to 5, Collingwood 6 and Flintoff 7.
Dalrymple is wasted at 7 because of his inability to wield the long handle.
Come to think of it, the entire England batting line up is lopsided. Grafters at the top and dashers at the bottom. If the grafters don't graft and the dashers don't dash, the Poms are in a lot of trouble - as evidenced today.
And no, the grafters cannot dash and the dashers cannot graft - as evidenced again today :)
Well, I think their line-up is "lob-sided" because they want to build an innings slowly, and have a late-order dash.
I don't think we need more batsman; or a change of order, really. But a change of approach.
Homer, That makes sense. Dalrymple can't really accelerate that much. But KP can play big innings. I think KP stuck in the top 4, is a good idea, because he is just that damn good. I wouldn't compromise his position all that much. Collingwood can't really hit to much eithe rto be honest....
But yeah. Interesting...
Atheist, What do you mean? Elaborate please!
Post a Comment