England's Summer Of Cricket against New Zealand and AUSTRALIA!

[Alex]

Everyone in that line up can bat up to Swann. Itll be a hell of a long tail for Australia to deal with. Itll be like playing them 10 years ago.

[Neil Young]

You mean it's a short tail.

[Shaggy]

I've got a tail

[Neil Young]

wags

[Shaggy]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/england-v-new-zealand-andy-flowers-postmatch-interview-turns-prickly-8635289.html

England v New Zealand: Andy Flower's post-match interview turns 'prickly'

BBC's Jonathan Agnew described his post-Test interview with Andy Flower as 'prickly'. Here's the best of it...

Jonathan Agnew: You got there, is it fair to say you did it the hard way?

Andy Flower: You'll have to expand on that, Test cricket is a hard game, and taking 20 wickets is difficult, but do you want to expand on your question?

JA You might have enforced the follow-on...

AF We had the right to choose, and we chose to bat again and get well ahead of them, we thought we would have enough time on a wearing pitch to take 10 wickets and that's what we did.

JA What about our second innings? Were you a bit frustrated at the pace of the scoring rate?

AF We could have been more urgent. Trott could have learnt a little from [Root and Bairstow] from the first innings, the right amount of urgency and positivity.

JA Did you bat too long? Do you think you might have declared at lunch-time?

AF We could have declared at any time, that was our right. We chose 20 minutes after lunch and we thought that was enough time and it's nice that that was proved right.

JA You won, Andy. I am not attacking you. I assume that you want to win in the best possible way every game, what might you take away from this game in that regard?

AF What on earth do you mean 'what might we take away from this game in that regard'?

JA Well, do you think that this was a 100 per cent performance?

AF I am sure, Aggers, when you reflect on your broadcasting today that you wouldn't have been 100 per cent, none of us operate at 100 per cent. It was a very good performance from our side: we won by over 200 runs. Cook and Root got tons, Swann is back in form, Finn got bounce. I would prefer to focus on these things than some of the negative things that you mention.

JA You have a break away from the limelight now, the next time we see you will be that series beginning with A – are we allowed to talk about it or not, that A word?

AF Why might you not be able to?

JA I thought we were put off talking about the Ashes…

AF No, I am asking you. Why might we not be able to talk about the Ashes?

JA I don't know, I simply read in the newspaper that it was not a directive, but a preference for the Ashes not to be talked about at the moment?

AF OK, and where would that directive have come from?

JA You, apparently.

AF Well, that is incorrect.

JA OK, see you at the Ashes.

[Alex]

'Prickly' is quite a polite way of saying he was being a Knob. No need for Flower to be so defensive there. Bit embarrassing really. I read something earlier with Agnew saying he hoped it was just a case of a little pressure building and nothing too serious. The media and players seem to have a brilliant relationship, but its things like this that can sour them.

I'd hate for it to go the way of Football.

[Shaggy]

He's such an intense dude

[RichC]

[Neil Young]

I am sure, Aggers, when you reflect on your broadcasting today that you wouldn't have been 100 per cent, none of us operate at 100 per cent. It was a very good performance from our side: we won by over 200 runs. Cook and Root got tons, Swann is back in form, Finn got bounce. I would prefer to focus on these things than some of the negative things that you mention.

I think that's the key point and it's hard to argue with any of it.

[Shaggy]

Yes ultimately it is. The only thing I'd say is we allowed the outcome to be dependent on the weather which is obviously out of our hands. A bit more rain than transpired and it would've been a draw when we could have already had the game won.

There is no way IMO we'd do the same if in an identical position v Australia.

[Neil Young]

And there's also no way we'd have done the same if we'd been 1-0 down in the series instead of 1-0 up.

[captainfog]

If we were 1-0 up and in the last test of the series we were in the same scenario there is no way we would have made Australia follow on.

[captainfog]

If KP is fit I'd move Root up.

Cook
Root
Trott
Pietersen
Bell
Bairstow
Prior
Broad
Swann
Finn
Anderson

I'm dead against promoting Root. If we drop Compo (and if he scores some county runs we won't) then I'd rather bring a new dude in.

Root has fixed the number 6 problem and gives our (up until recently) flaky middle order some much needed steel.

[Shaggy]

He is an opener, he's been picked because of his form as an opener. Yes he's had problems with the new ball - 15 and two first over (maybe even first ball) dismissals - but that's not the same as opening the batting. Unless Compton sorts himself out I'd get Root up there for sure.

Much less upheaval than bringing in *another* newbie. Get Root up, KP back in and Bairstow stays at 6. Continuity and a progressive, positive move IMO.

[captainfog]

He is an opener, he's been picked because of his form as an opener. Yes he's had problems with the new ball - 15 and two first over (maybe even first ball) dismissals - but that's not the same as opening the batting. Unless Compton sorts himself out I'd get Root up there for sure.

Much less upheaval than bringing in *another* newbie. Get Root up, KP back in and Bairstow stays at 6. Continuity and a progressive, positive move IMO.

When Australia were in their pomp their top order batsman all started out playing at 6. I think that's the way we should go. Also, I can't remember the last time we had a solid number 6 (Colly was **** in his last couple of years). I just don't want to rock that boat and I think it'll best suit Root's development.

Not convinced about Bairstow either, especially against the Aussie quicks. There is no easy solution because when it comes to batting we are not blessed with strength in depth