Is Tim Ambrose the worst number six ever for England?

Question

Hi

Is Tim Ambrose the worst number six ever for England? I am not including night watchmen.

Thanks

Answer 1

On overall ability probably not but on current form he could just about justify 10 or Jack.

Your point highlights Englands batting frailty's at the moment, realistically we have gone into a test match against the second best test side in the world with four bats who may score runs ( Cook, Strauss, Pieterson and Bell), one good captain who cant buy a run at the moment, a couple of bowling biased all rounders, how on earth are we going to get anything out of it ? No runs = No wins , no matter how good your bowlers are.

Answer 2

Tim is a good batsman. He is not as bad in batting as keepers like Strudwick, Duckworth, Jack Russell, Bob taylor or Geraint Jones.

Answer 3

he has only played hand full of matches , its difficult to say it

Answer 4

No i think Tim Ambrose is not the worst number six ever for england he just has to work on his batting and he will be a great batsman.

Answer 5

Bob Taylor or Gareth Batty would get my nomination.

Answer 6

yes, he only knows how to play one shot, which is the cut shot.

Answer 7

No , i dont think so......its too early to say about his skills & technique. As u know that for every 6 no batsman has a lot of pressure after the failure of top & middle order.

England has never had a consistent wicket keeper. Selectors always select new. Gerent jones is avery good player & still outside....james foster...matt prior....& many.

Every one is not like Alec stewart, he was very good.

so...we hav to wait to judge him.

Answer 8

Well I don't know about that, I'm sure there have been worse.

But one thing is for sure he shouldn't bat at that position, he is not a natural number 6 batsman and his failure with the bat yesterday shows that.

The trouble is though England have effectively got three number 7s in the team (Flintoff, Ambrose and Broad) so he has to go somewhere to accommodate other players. Flintoff can't really bat there because he's just rejoined the team and his batting isn't up to it and Broad is too inexperienced to bat higher up the order.

It does create a quandary though as Ambrose's batting isn't up to standard in that position either but it's not like anyone else lower down can take the number 6 role. So for the time being Ambrose is stuck with there, though if he fails again in his next innings I'm sure the coaches will tinker with the order again, perhaps putting Flintoff there.

Answer 9

no u cant say that but i think stuart broad should be  placed at no. 6

Answer 10

No, I don`t think so, he played some usefull innings at No.6 for England.