Five batsmen not enough for England
It was always going to be a tough ask for England today and they probably left themselves too much to do.
South Africa batted well in their first innings - which included brilliant centuries from AB de Villiers and Ashwell Prince - a feat none of England's batsmen could manage. More on that later.
In some ways the return of Andrew Fintoff for this Test threw up more questions than answers.
At Lord's England's batting line-up looked solid - they posted a big total and had a great chance of winning.
Here England went with five bowlers to accomodate Freddie, and it meant the batting line-up was unbalanced with Tim Ambrose batting at six, which in my opinion is two places too high for a batsman of his ability.
The result was that England started the match with five specialist batsmen and ultimately they paid for that decision.
Freddie's return is great news for England, but the selectors will have to think carefully about how they approach the next two Tests.
Stuart Broad's impressive second innings knock of 67 showed what was possible batting on this strip at number eight, and his technique compares favourably with that of Tim Ambrose and Flintoff.
There wasn't much in this pitch. On day one the ball did swing but after that the wicket flattened out and it was pretty benign, so England's batsmen would have been disappointed with their performance.
Kevin Pietersen's come in for a spot of criticism - especially regarding his second innings score of 13. As usual he came out blazing and appeared not to bat as the situation required.
Some critics suggested he bats to his reputation and not to what is in front of him.
I wouldn't point the finger at Kevin or blame him for the result - he hit a couple of sparkling shots and was then undone by a good ball from Kallis.
Pietersen's a wonderful player, an entertainer and you just have to accept that sometimes he'll be at his best and sometimes he's going to fail. When the selectors sit down ahead of the next Test at Edgbaston they will not be discussing KP I promise you.
Top of the agenda will be whether to stick with five bowlers or revert to the policy that served them well at Lord's. It has been a problem for a while, especially when Freddie is injured or not in form.
Tim Ambrose's position at wicketkeeper is clearly under threat - he's not a number six batsman although he did show a measure of resolve in his second innings. Essex's James Foster and last year's incumbent Matt Prior are the favourites to replace him.
Prior's been in great form with the bat recently, but the selectors want to maintain consistency and I suspect that could see Ambrose keep his place.
As for the bowling attack, Darren Pattinson could bear the brunt of this defeat. I was suprised as anyone when he was picked, but the main question - aside from qualification - is whether Darren is good enough to be a Test bowler.
He's 30 next month, he doesn't have any tricks up his sleeve like reverse swing or explosive pace, and I suspect if Ryan Sidebottom is fit Darren will be packed off back to Nottinghamshire.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~46~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
I agree, Goochie, four bowlers is the answer. But you've got to pick the right four!
Complain about this comment
Hope you'll be letting us know your player ratings before too long, Graham. They're what I was hoping to catch here this evening.
Complain about this comment
I agree need decent 4 bowlers, Broad is a little to expensive at the moment to be a front line bowler. However given Broads form with the bat and his overall technique, I would try him at 6, the decent scores he has been made have been curtailed by batting with the tail, and I honestly believe he would get a ton quite quickly
I think this may take the pressure of him with the ball and still have room for 4 bowlers, including Simon Jones and Harmy Sidebottom and Flintoff and Pansar in the squad. But for Edgbaston ambrose and pattinson must go.
Complain about this comment
defiantly 4 bowlers, give Broad a rest bring back Sid, if he is not fit play either Harminson, Jones, Hoggy or Tremlett(who should have played above pattinson). I would like to see what Foster could do with the gloves. And I would like to see a change in the batting order with Vaughan moving down to 5.
for the next match
Strauss
Cook
Bell
KP
Vaughan
shah/Colly
Fred
Foster
Sid
Anderson
Panesar
Complain about this comment
5 bowlers is OK if you have a No3 and a keeper who can score some runs. If Colly had to go due to poor form then the time must soon be coming for Vaughan to be put out to graze. I'd give him a couple of games down the order to try to get him some runs but if he fails time for a new captain for 2009.
Broad is looking more and more like an all rounder pick, which will stand him well in one day cricket but can we have both him and Freddie picked as main bowlers? Hopefully yes but Broad needs to take more wickets in the longer term.
Ambrose showed some fight today but if we need the keeper to be counted as the 6th frontline batter he's not convincing.
For next game would also give Monty a break and fight fire with fire by recalling Jones............he's got one of the best bowling averages around at present.
Cook
Strauss
Pietersen
Bell
Vaughan
Prior
Broad
Flintoff
Jones
Sidebottom
Anderson
Complain about this comment
For Edbaston
Strauss
Cook
Bell
Pieterson
Vaughan
Prior
Broad
Flintoff
Sidebottom
Anderton
Panesar
Complain about this comment
I feel the comments given by Graham are complacent and benign. Obviously there is not case for a wholesale change but firstly Michael Vaughan?s ability with the bat has to be a serious subject of question as has Kevin Pietersen's attitude in respect of a team game. Simply speaking, the batting performances of Anderson and Broad have put all the recognised batsmen to utter shame. As insisted of the SA team after the first test, the England Team need to up their game considerably to avoid outright humiliation and making sure that ruddy prima donnas don?t mess up it should be part of the team talk. We can do five bowlers if we have five batters, so to speak.
Complain about this comment
Broad is now averaging 41 in tests. Not as dumb as it sounds - bat him at six and take the onus off him getting wickets!! Sid back in for Pattinson. Bear with Ambrose but bat him at 8.
Complain about this comment
Note Sobers started his test career at number 9 and ended up at 4 and later on in his illustrious career at 6. Not suggesting by any stretch Broad is anywhere near the Greatest Cricketer but it just may be we have unearthed a gem of a batsman who can bowl well enough for a 5th bowler. My take we should pursue with Broad and stick him in at 7 for next few tests?
Complain about this comment
ambrose played well today, he was there with flinstones and they both played good. they didn't score many runs, but they were together for over 160 balls, this frustrated smith but it just took 1 mistake by ambrose and styen got him! Every team in the world needs a player like Mahendra Singh Dhoni.
england ratings
cook = 5
strauss = useless and 2
Vaughan = -10
pieterson = 2 >>>doesn't have any control
bell = 3 > makes 1 good score but cant back up
ambrose= 5, WK was good, but was alright
flintones= 5, bowling alright, batting decent
broad= 7
anderson = 9
monty= 5
the new guy = 3, bolwing alright, but whats wrong with not picking hoggard this match,
ENGLAND NEED SIDEBOTTOM
england team for next match
Cook
Vaughan
Pieterson
Shah
Bopara
Flintones
Mustard
Broad
Sidebottom
Anderson
Monty
THIS IS A WINNING SIDE, this side can beat every team but apart from INDIA. india is tooooo good
Complain about this comment
Disagree with you on this one Goochie. Englands top 5 had 10 innings and produced a highest score of 60. SA had 6 innings and produced 2 big hundreds. Of those 10 innings by England, 8 times they got into double figures - conversion rate one of the issues. Despite all the concerns about englands bottom 6- scores of 38,36,66*,34,10,13 by the bottom 6 today only highlight the job the top 5 didn't do.
Another issue out of England's control was the conditions - the overhead ones on the first day and to some extent batting on a wicket (good as it was) past it's best. It was a great toss to win.
I'm not sure an out of form collingwood would of done any better than Broad. Certainly SA would of scored more than 520 if england had only 4 seamers + collingwood.
Only change I can see for edgbaston is sidebottom for pattinson. Despite this test, all the top 5 have scored runs this summer, so they'll get another chance...
Complain about this comment
Why is it that England have opted for consistency for the last few matches and then decide because the game at Headingley is totally unpredictable to draft in some totally unknown like Pattinson who a few months ago was wanting to play for Australia having lived there most of his life.
What sort of message is that to someone like Chris Tremlett who has worked hard on his game and been on the fringe for several seasons.
Yes we were outplayed by the Sprinboks but yet again the selectors came up short with their choice of a "one match wonder" and undermined the whole team's confidence.
Stick to the squad is the motto - it works for the Aussies - our guys never seem to get the message though and we have paid the price
Complain about this comment
England need a fighting chance of winning the next 2 Tests so cannot afford to maintain consistent selection of players with Tim Ambrose´s consistently feeble results.
I can see that Prior is worth a place as a specialist batsman, although his wicket keeping is still not world class, although Chris Read does seem to be in good enough form to deliver for England in the next 2 Tests
Broad is clearly an allrounder worthy of the no 6 spot , his batting against this world class attack today confirms it.If coach Otis Gibson spends enough time with him he will soon work out a better variety of deliveries so that his Test match bowling will be upto scratch.
The South African batting lineup is very strong and a 5 man bowling lineup is essential with these long days in the field.
Unless the next pitch is a spinners paradise, I would select this 5 man attack : Flintoff,Broad,Anderson,Sidebottom and Jones for the next test, and rely on KP to provide spin, with captain Vaughan as backup spinner if really needed.
This would be a perfect time for Vaughan´s gamy leg to start playing up, so that Collingwood could return as captain, or bring in Shah and make Straus captain -now he was a captain who truly led from the front!
Complain about this comment
Can we agree that 'ask' is a verb, not a noun in (British) English please?
Complain about this comment
i think broad should be dropped, i rate him highly and he is definitely one for the future as a geniune all rounder, but i think he needs a little break. I dont think playing 5 bowlers is the answer, vaughan captained as if he had only 4. Sid should come back as well as colly, to replace pattinson and broad. If its a green wicket i would drop panesar, who had an average game at headingley, and put broad in. this gives four front line seamers and batting down to number 9.
Complain about this comment
England effectively started this came with the following:
4 specialist batsman
5 specialist bowlers
1 wicketkeeper
1 captain
How Vaughan's position is not coming under threat is beyond comprehension. As Geoff B stated - he wouldn't even get a game for Yorkshire if all batsmen were fit.
In the 7 Tests Stuart Broad has played - he has scored about 100 more runs than Vaughan and taken 19 or 20 wickets.
Final point - take Ambrose out of the equation and you are left with the following facts:
Runs scored by the five England batsmen = 219
Runs scored by the five England bowlers = 219!!!
Complain about this comment
Yesterday Gooch indicated England's bowlers aren't good enough to take twenty wickets, now they need 6 batsmen, unfortunately England can't play 12 players, in fact England should be allowed to play 13 players whereas the other team should only have 10 players, simply because England are England and everyone else are simply 2nd class.
In picking players, I would definitely bring Hoggard back as he will be able to bowl 25 overs per day, Simon Jones must come in to contention as he is simply the best bowler in the country and truly the only player feared by Australia for his bowling (Flintoff is feared as an all-rounder), even if it means only bowling 15 overs/day.
Flintoff is in competition with Broad for the #7 spot and Swann or Rashid should come in at #8.
The last slot should probably go to Sidebottom ahead of Harmison as he can bowl more overs and be more consistent if less destructive.
Complain about this comment
I agree, Goochie, four bowlers is the answer. But you've got to pick the right four!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I say England convert Broad back to a batsman and use him sparingly as this fifth bowler. He's clearly capable of batting in Tests, I believe his average is currently over 40 and he has three fifties in 11 Tests compared with just one haul of three wickets. He's shown what he can do, with less pressure on him to bowl which seems considerably less natural to him than batting, he could well flourish. Perhaps we could then unearth a Jaques Kallis of our own and once he is settled as a (Test) batsman he can look to become an all-rounder. Who says he has to be a 'perfect' all-rounder?
As for the batting top order, England had a knee jerk reaction to the 1st Test. Vaughan should have batted again and then the bowlers would have been less tired using the new ball and maybe done a bit better than they did. We may not have won, we certainly didn't by bowling twice in three days, and the bowlers paid the price. South Africa had the psychological advantage going into the second Test. England decided there wasn't enough bowling, sacrificed the batsman and replaced him with a 29 year old 'nothing special' bowler. No blame on Pattinson, however the extra firepower could have done with being missiles not more TA blanks as were already being supplied by Broad.
But England batted badly 1st innings regardless. Not to make a 50 between them or even a 50 partnership on that pitch was unforgiveable. 2nd innings was a much better total, but still relied on some late order hitting to pass itself off as respectable. The bowlers toiled, but proved quality will win over quantity every time. England already carry Panesar's batting, to carry Pattinson and Broad's lack of serious wicket-taking and a susceptable batting order from 6-11 was too much.
Maybe England are, or were. guilty of arrrogance. Feeling they could make changes and since Flintoff is the big gun that it could only improve the side. After all they wouldn't be alone in thinking Collingwood wasn't scoring many runs so the batting wasn't being weakened. But it was, Ambrose is no number six and Vaughan has averaged under 25 in his last 15 innings. With KP capable of scoring big runs or quick cameos, Bell looking Hick-esque in his inconsistency and Strauss looking so close to getting back into form before drifting into another 'almost' innings.
Off the back of a big total 1st Test, England got carried away. The difference between the two sides on 1st innings were basically Pietersen and Bell. And as if by magic the difference this Test was De Villiers and Prince.
1st Test, 1st innings : England lead 346. KP 152 + Bell 199 = 351
2nd Test, 1st innings : South Africa lead 319. Prince 149 + De Villiers 174 = 323
Well blow me, those pairs of centurions scored within five runs of the 1st innings lead between them.
Maybe if Vaughan hadn't enforced the follow-on England could have kept the same XI for a seventh consecutive Test and things been different. Flintoff bowled tidily enough but without seriously troubling the South Africans with wickets. Despite much hype about his bowling, the Ashes in 2005 remains one of only two series he's taken 20 wickets in - the other being Vaughan's other series to be proud of, the win in South Africa. Besides those two Flintoff has not picked up more than 14 in a series. Hero that he was in the Ashes, Flintoff doesn't take the wickets he should in Tests. His bowling average should be well under 30 not over 30.
I've never been a big fan of five bowlers theory. West Indies dominated with four, Australia dominated and still do with four main bowlers - even with a phenonemal batsman keeper. When the pitch or conditions help the bowlers, the fifth bowler is not called upon (much) and sometimes only three are needed to bowl the opposition out. When the pitch is much flatter and less responsive, you could have ten bowlers and still make no difference. So five bowlers is good preparation for bowling 100+ overs, if you bowl that many in an innings then you won't win too many Tests.
Pick your four best bowlers, have a batsman or two who can bowl and pose a wicket threat, and you have a team with enough batting to put runs on the board, and enough bowling to make most of the pitch when it is helpful or keep the innings in check when it's not so helpful.
Also, It does help to have a balanced batting mentality, maybe England have one or two too many strokeplayers in the line-up and not enough grafters. With Pietersen, Flintoff and Ambrose in the side, plus Vaughan in poor nick, the odds of England successfully batting much more than four sessions were long indeed.
Complain about this comment
"but the selectors want to maintain consistency"
What flaming good is consistency in the face of outright humiliation?!!
1. Bowling: We need penetrative bowlers - that is only Jimmy from this match, he was unlucky. As far as bowling goes everyone else should be worrying about their place, except perhaps Monty as this pitch had nothing for him.
2. Batting: everyone bar Cook and KP should be worried for their place. There has been enough said about the first innings. In the second innings we had to stay in, scoring didn't matter all that much, we didn't - but not only that all the batsmen, except Cook were scoring at a rate of knots. Freddie was supposedly restraining himself but he still scored 38 off 95. Compare this to the slow yet relentless scoring of Amla and Prince. It's a test not twenty20! We need to take our time and not chase balls we don't need too.
There can be no quibbling if massive changes are made after that dogs dinner. How about:
1. Cook
2. Bell
3. Vaughan
4. Shah
5. KP
6. Freddie
7. Prior
8. Broad
9. Jones
10. Harmison
11. Panesar
Complain about this comment
goochie is the best!!!!! COME ON GOOCHIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
I'm surprised Gooch hasn't asked for ten Doeschate (sp???) to be picked.
Is he any good, is he eligible?
His averages look great but it could be just lies or damned lies.
Complain about this comment
I can't believe Goochie that you think that Foster is capable of batting at 6 for England. Foster averages 34 in the second division of the championship batting on flat wickets at Chelmsford. Ambrose averages over 100 for Warwickshire this season.
If they are going to replace Ambrose to balance the side, the only better batsman/keeper playing county cricket is Matt Prior.
Complain about this comment
Personally I think we need to go in with 6 batsmen and 4 strike bowlers.
If Panesar is not able to take wickets or bowl attacking lines when bowling then his place is under serious threat. If he bowls like he has done in the last match it may be the time to go with Pieterson and hope his sheer force of personality (ego) means he will put the same effort and skill in to his spin bowling as he does his batting.
l'd go with
Cook
Strauss
Bell
Pieterson
Vaughan
Bopara
Flintoff
Foster
Anderson
Sidebottom
Jones
Complain about this comment
#21...
To suggest dropping Anderson after his heroic efforts with bat and ball in this game is simply outrageous. He has been the most improved player this year for England. If even two or three of the batters had shown the discipline, commitment and sheer heart that Anderson showed, we would have at least put up a fight to save the game. Broad and Cook were outstanding too. The ABC of England, you might say!
It is the fiasco of England's batting which should be under the spotlight. Over 60% of the runs in that second innings came from batsmen 6-11.
Vaughan must go: he cannot score a run and his captaincy lacks imagination when things are not going well. Any fool can captain when the batters score 600 and your bowlers take 20 wickets. The test of a captain is to make the right calls when things do not go according to plan.
It is the height of absurdity to say, as Moores did after the game, that England batted well in the second innings. Cook and the bowlers did!!!
Clear out Moores and get someone who has played the game at top level.
Complain about this comment
I am surprised by the number of people who feel that Broad should be batting at number 6. As a South African fan, let me give you a warning about that. You may remember Lance Klusener. He was a fantastic hitter of the ball and did an incredible job for us at either 7 or 8. Because he kept getting left with the tail (Symcox, Pollock, Boucher ha, ha), we decided to move him up to 6. This put a huge amount of pressure on him that hadn't existed when he batted lower down the order, and effectively finished him off as an international cricketer. My feeling is that if you elevate Broad to 6 on the basis of recent performances, the same will happen.
Goochie is spot on when arguing that the England batting line up looked weak. For us, seeing Ambrose at 6 gave us a real lift once we got through Pietersen and Bell - who are England's best players, regardless of the negative comments thrown at them from some quarters today.
Complain about this comment
The best keeper in the country is Chris Read, and though he has made a few howlers at international level with the bat, he is capable and has been a consistant run scorer in the County Championship for the last few years, and we must remember that he was in good form for England before being inexplicably dropped TWICE during the Ashes 06/07 and following ODI series
My team would be
Strauss (c)
Cook
Bell
Pieterson
Shah
Broad
Read (wk)
Flintoff
Swann
Anderson
Jones
Complain about this comment
"appeared not to bat as the situation required" ... ? So what would he actually have to do NOT to bat as the situation required? Granted, if he'd blazed his way to 180, we would have loved him for it. But his innings was madness. We just needed 2 batsmen to get their heads down and put up a really big partnership, to at least get a chance. None of them could. Or maybe, Steyn, Morkel, Ntini and, er, Kallis really are the new Holding, Marshall, Roberts, and er ... ? Give me a break.
Complain about this comment
The irony of England's batting is that Broad's batting positively was the best method of attack England had. It was appropriate in the second innings and Pietersen was unlucky to get a nick when you consider how many plays and misses the South African's had.
However it was all an innings too late.
The application in the first innings was non-existant.
I would like to see Strauss and Vaughan swap. Strauss has the class to be number 3, whilst Vaughan is a proven number 1. He is a weak link batting atm.
Bell and Pietersen should, of course, remain.
Flintoff must resume number six, I don't care how out of form he maybe, he is our allrounder. His confidence will grow being treated as such.
Keeper position should revert to Prior in England. Not that Ambrose shows much prowess to spinners anyway with his reluctance to stay low.
Sadly we need to keep Broad as a batsman atm, which is a shame as his bowling sux. We have our Partnership breaker in Flintoff. I would prefer us to bring in Jones or Harmison for those short sharp bursts that are 5 wicket hauls or nothing. It's a gamble with our line-up atm with 2 batsmen friendly wickets 2 come.
Sidebottom and Anderson are our best bowlers, and Anderson should be pushed up the batting order. He is no Hoggard with the bat.
And that just leaves the spinner. It's controversial but if a pitch is a seamer like Headingly was why play Panesar??? He offers nothing. He is our best spinner and a cert for the oval in late summer, but in this wet summer why not pick an additional seamer?
I'll leave it up to you to choose who that seamer should be, but obviously I would pick Simon Jones.
Complain about this comment
Our bowlers just don't look threatening. The combination of Harmy shaking batsmen up and Simon Jones bowling them out is just not there at the moment. I'm not particularly one for looking backwards through rose tinted glasses, but these are guys who are still performing well on the County scene right now and still have class. The new boys don't seem to be at anywhere like the sort of level we need now or, more importantly, next year. Broad gets in, in my opinion, as an all-rounder batting above Freddy at the moment. KP needs a sports psychologist on a man to man basis - full time. we can't afford to waste his talent even if he thinks he can do anything. What we'd give for a wicket-keeper who can bat in the top 5! can't we spend some time on training a good batsman and a decent keeper?
Complain about this comment
Surely Flintoff is a batsman as well as a bowler, likewise Broad. So for the next game just replace Patterson with Sidebottom and thats it. And in the batting line on put Board at 6, Flintoff 7 and Ambrose 8
So that way we will have 7 good batsmen and 5 decent bowlers
Complain about this comment
yes good call, but aren't we wasting number 8 with a keeper who can't bat? there must be a better option, particularly with the Ashes in mind?
Complain about this comment
What continued nonsense from Graham Gooch. South Africa have wicket keeper batsmen who averages 30 in test cricket and he has played 116 games for his country! Ambrose keeping is far superior to Prior's - selecting him would cost us more in runs through dropped catches and byes!! and Foster..... good keeper yes, batsmen I think not.
The emergence of Broad as a quality allrounder should allow a fight for 6th spot between him, Ambrose and Fred, and if the top 5 batsmen can't get enough runs then they need to be looked at. We didn't lose this much because of poor batting - our inept bowling was to blame - bring back Simon Jones!
Complain about this comment
what a shambles, perhaps the selectors should now hold there hands up and say "we got it wrong" our attack is so weak that they managed nearly 600 on a pitch we stuggled to get 300. Maybe now they will change this precious top 5 which has had a fair crack for. For me, the performance was that bad that id make 4 changes, obviously if sidey is fit he comes back for pattinson, id let cook go back to essex and get some form and have a break from the international scene and let Vaughan open , where he has had most of his success and bring in shah. Ambrose had gotta go, we need a keeper who can bat 6 and clearly this guy is a number 8 at best, so for me one of prior, foster or the forgotten man geraint jones and finally simon jones has got to be i the squad at least for the next test, for edgbaston:
strauss
vaughan
shah
pietersen
bell
prior/jones/foster
flintoff
broad
anderson
sidebottom
panesar
simon jones
Complain about this comment
I really fail to see why people keep putting Panesar in their teams. He is NOT a good bowler.
When the ball is not spinning as much he actually bowls faster. The two things that spinners do which gets wickets is turn, bounce and flight. At Lords I was disgusted with his effort as he kept bowling flatter and faster as the innings progressed. This should be obvious to a village cricketer - we had the runs to play with, he needed to toss it up, try to beat them in the flight and give the ball a chance to bounce and turn. But no. And Vaughan should take a lot of blame for not making him do this.
For a spinner to be not only ineffective but entirely unthreatening on a 5th day wicket is criminal. And shows he is not a good bowler.
And then to pick him for Headingley where it doesn't spin. Madness.
Complain about this comment
I think England need to face the facts.
Flintoff and Broad don't take enough wickets, and Vaughan dosen't make enough runs.
For all Freddie pace and beating of the bat how many wickets does he actually take. He's living off 2005 and until he becomes a top quality number 6, or takes regular five fer's he'll never be a great. You can't be a test player on your catching ability!!!
Broad has bags of talent, but he dosen't take enough wickets. He and Freddie can't play in the same team. Broad can bat though, as he is showing, and he seems to have a gfood tempremant.
Vaughan is not the player he was when made captain, and hasn't been for a long while. You can't be in a test team just because you're a good captain. You should pick the best team and the select the most suitable captain from those eleven. Vaughan dosen't make it I'm afraid.
Oh and as an aside, when will the TMS team stop telling us how unlucky Anderson, Flintoff and co are. It's funny how the better you are the more luck you get. (Anderson has bowled well by the way and was the one real threat for England in this test match.)
Complain about this comment
Graham,
Totally agree with you re: Ambrose and Pattinson. I would really not want to go back to Matthew Iron Gloves Prior as he is not of a high enough quality behind the wicket to justify his place. James Foster, as I have said for a while now, should really be given a chance after a good schooling at county level and some previous test match experience. Catches win matches, and with South Africa's batting giving few chances as it is, we cannot afford any to be grassed. A quality keeper sets the tone for the side's fielding. Foster is just that.
Darren Pattinson's selection had me spitting chips as here was a brilliant opportunity to bolster the bowling with not only Flintoff but one of Hoggard, Harmison, Jones or Tremlett, all of whom are in excellent form currently. He will go but in some ways I would like to see the opportunity to bring in one of those, ideally Simon Jones, taken at Edgbaston. Sidebottom should tour in the winter but for now needs to rest his back.
On a positive note, I'm sure you appreciated Anderson's guts and Broad's fluency against Steyn et al today. And Cook's 50, although you would probably add he should have made that 150.
Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Flintoff
Foster
Broad
Anderson
Jones
Panesar
Complain about this comment
Broad has been downright impressive this year. I've had a play with Cricinfo's Statsguru (mainly because I wanted to see if it was at all feasible for Broad to get 1000 runs in a calendar year. Conclusion - he'd need one or two big hundreds). Since the start of 2008, the England batsmen/allrounders have performed as follows (ranked by average):
KP: 655 runs at 50.38, HS 152 (and 2 wkts at 42.00)
Bell: 529 runs at 48.09, HS 199
Strauss: 611 runs at 47.00, HS 177
Broad: 369 runs at 46.12, HS 76 (and 18 wkts at 46.83)
Cook: 446 runs at 34.30, HS 61
Collingwood: 283 runs at 28.30, HS 66 (and 5 wkts at 37.40) (NB :1 fewer Test than the others)
Ambrose: 326 runs at 27.16, HS 102
Vaughan: 346 runs at 26.61, HS 107
Broad does look the part of a Test-class batsman. A young one, to be sure, but a promising one who seems to rise to challenges.
Just out of curiosity, I looked at Flintoff's stats for his last 7 Tests (same number as Broad's this year):
310 runs at 23.84, HS 89 (and 16 wkts at 40.50).
Complain about this comment
Lets be honest unless there are favourable conditions Anderson and Sidebottom are not going to bowl out any decent international team. Broad just is not there yet he is not quick enough and does not swing the ball, yes he is tall and yes he can bat a bit. The much heralded return of Freddy just did not happen for him (I found it bizarre that people would consider that he would have made the difference at Lords, remember Sri Lanka?). I think Freddy has what it takes to take wickets in a partnership with another dangerous bowler, however alone he loses potency as patient batsmen just don?t take him on, and wait for him to tire.
Harmy and Jones are the only 2 England bowlers that have had the real X-Factor in the last few years. Flintoff is an excellent foil for these two. I also like Tremlett as he is big and fast (a real 90mph man). I see 4 quicks as the way forward. Freddy, Harmy, Jones and Tremlett, lets blast them out! Monty and Sidebottom could be included if Prior bats at six and the location and conditions suggest that they will be of use. Else choose the best gloveman (Read or Foster) and go with 4 bowlers.
For the future, England need to select a capable batsman (probably a slip fielder) and develop him as a gloveman. For example I would say that Colly or even Belly (I know they are not real slippers) could have been excellent keepers if pushed and nurtured. I would like to see players like Shah and Solanki (maybe not quite good enough just as batsmen) pushing to keep wicket (for their counties) and get into the England side as a batsman/keepers.
Strauss and or Vaughan have to go. You can carry one of these half-players, but not both. I suggest the ejection of Strauss (unless he can keep! Joke) and Vaughan to open. We get the right and left hand combination at the top this way. If Vaughan is dropped then make Pieterson the joint Test and ODI captain.
So team is:-
Cook
Vaughan (c)
Bell
Pieterson
Shah
Prior
Flintoff
Jones
Harmison
Monty
Tremlett
Complain about this comment
DIC you need to get your facts straight, none more so than your comment ?Bell looking Hick-esque in his inconsistency?
Ian Bell 41 tests - 8 hundreds and 18 50?s.
G.Hick 65 tests - 6 hundreds and 18 50?s
Hick may never have lived up to his full potential, but his record still stacks up against the vast majority of test batsmen, but Bell?s record of 2 scores of at least 50 in every 3 tests makes him one of the most consistent test batsmen in history. He has more scores of 50 plus than KP from the same number of tests.
When you consider that ź of all his tests have been played against an outstanding Australia attack it is an even more remarkable record
Complain about this comment
AndyCooke
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Broad's amin job as a bowler? He's scored two fifties in this series yet England are 1 down. He needs to take wickets!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
P.S. Enough suggestions about picking a bowler (Broad) as a batsman.
Complain about this comment
should read 1/4 of all his tests (quarter).
The text did strange things when it
up loaded
Complain about this comment
If Vaughan plays as a batsmen can we take him to court for breaching the trade descriptions regulations? Seriously does he contribute anything that he couldnt do whilst ferrying the drinks around? I think he's had his day and its tim a new test captain was appointed.
Complain about this comment
So what "positives" did Peter Moores and team England take from this disaster of a test match?
Complain about this comment
Monty's the best we've got - good or bad. I agree to pick him on a non-turning wicket is mad, but he has won some matches for us so I think you're a bit extreme to call him no good. So who have we got? KP - yes. Bell? - I'd say yes. Strauss? - maybe. Broad? - I'd say yes. Monty? given a turner, yes. Freddie? The opposition say yes which makes me suspicious, but probably yes. Keeper? not Ambrose, but who? Sidebottom? most would say yes but I'm not certain. are you? is he really world class? Cook? not convinced but who else? Broad? - yes but for his batting not his bowling (go figure!) Anderson? not world class in my opinion, but best we can manage? have we got anything to compare with:
gooch
trescothick
gower
lamb
stewart
botham
flintoff (in form)
harmison
jones
willis
Can't think of a number 8 for that list! Help. but the point is, have we? a comparison for that grouping? we need one if we are going to win the ashes next year. GSD
Complain about this comment
For me the issue is not having 5 specialist batsmen. I don't want to harp on about it, but we won the 2005 Ashes with just 5 specialist batsmen.
For me the big issue is temprament and patience. England's batsmen seem far too intent on chucking away good starts. Chasing wide ones and the like. South Africa have demonstrated quite clearly during the course of their last two innings that you don't need to swing for everything. If the ball isn't going on to hit the stumps then leave it. Vaughan used to be a good leaver of the ball. So too was Strauss. But comparing and contrasting our top 6 with the SA top 6, it doesn't seem like they know where their off-peg and are content at having a slash at everything. Pietersen's dismisals in this match are prime examples - and unlike you Goochie, I do not believe the ball from Kallis was that good but instead was standard stuff from him - but Pietersen is far from being alone in this crime.
So I'd stick with the same basic formula. 5 Batsmen can work, but they have to be prepared to work hard. Put a high price on their wickets, adopt a Boycott-like over-my-dead-body approach and make the SA's toil away for two days if necessary. It might not be pretty, but if it is effective then who cares? This ins't a tickling competition; we have test matches to win!
My squad for Edgbaston:
Strauss
Cook
Pietersen
Bell
Vaughan
Prior
Flintoff
Anderson
(3 of) SP Jones, Broad, Sidebottom, Panesar
I know previously I berated Prior as being a bit useless behind the timbers, but even I cannot argue against the case he is building on the county circuit. Really in form with the bat and from all accounts, his 'keeping has been tidy too.
An arguement could be made for resting Broad at Edgbaston, but I'm not sure that I would. I would also suspect that Sidbottom would have recovered from his back problems so I expect him to come back. For me, Panesar of late hasn't been hugely ineffective and, dare I say it, one dimensional. We saw at Old Trafford against New Zealand that when the wicket wasn't turning, Panesar couldn't buy a wicket (1 for 111 from 22 overs). How much turn will the Edgbaston track take? If the answer is "not much" then I would go for an all seam attack of Jones, Sidebottom, Anderson, Flintoff and Broad. Pietersen and Vaughan could bowl a few overs of spin (and Bell could have a trundle) to rest the quicks if necessary, but I'm really keen to see Jones in action again as he's incisive and can get the older ball to do swing.
Complain about this comment
I also agree that we have to get Simon Jones back into the side. He's apparently back to fitness and form and carving up the batsmen in the second division at a strike rate around 30. that's what we need - a true strike bowler.
Suggested team:
Strauss
Cook or Vaughan
Vaughan or Collingwood
KP
Bell
Flintoff
Broad
Ambrose or Foster
Anderson
Jones
Panesar
I'd like to get Sidebottom in there as well. If it's not at all spin friendly, then swap him in for Panesar (and get KP practising his (fairly good) off-spinners.
Anderson's improvement with the ball (the ratio of times Good Jimmy turns up against the times that Bad Jimmy turns up is constantly improving) has been noticeable and he's really knuckled down with the bat to try to grab the nightwatchman role.
I'd keep with Ambrose a bit longer because the constant chopping and changing is unhelpful - but if he does get the boot, Foster has to have his opportunity.
Both Cook and Vaughan have real class, but Vaughan's run of bad form is truly worrying - possibly he'd do better in his old role as an opener (so Cook's position would be the one under threat). Collingwood is a gritty fighter, which we often need, and his bowling can be helpful.
Flintoff has held down the number 6 slot before and having him up there gives him the chance to come good - he's got a big match temperemant. I do see Broad having the potential to hold that position in the future, but as Africanprotea says above, it would be wise not to throw him under too much batting pressure too soon.
Complain about this comment
All this stuff about boy wonder Broad is rubbish. He is an ordinary bowler who simply hasnt proved himself to be otherwise.
So he's an allrounder is he? But we already have an allrounder, his name is Flintoff!!
Send him back to his county so he can learn how to bowl.
Complain about this comment
I disagree I think england were unlucky with the ball in the first innings there were many play and misses from the saffers during the innings and if a few things went our way we may not lost by ten wickets-that aside englands bowling attack has been rather feeble-ive never seen test matches where England take only one wicket for an entire day and thats happened in consecutive matches! We need to bolster the bowling attack so that we can apply pressure at both ends South Africas scoring rate has been rather slow in this series there batsmen are very patient and pick the bad ball with ease i think england need a 5 man attack with possibly monty stepping aside! Prior should come into the side to bolster the batting!
Cook
Complain about this comment
*40
I agree completely about the keeper situation. We need to develop Bell in the position. Or send Collingwood away to keeper's school, so we have a convincing test-match grinding keeper/batsman at 6 - with Flintoff at 7.
Complain about this comment
I think that five bowlers is crucial with our current England team because we do not want to overload the likes of flintoff causing injury. And also because between two the 1st and 2nd test/3rd and 4th tests there is only a three day break.
Although the selectors really need to be more consistent when they make decisions, not wild ones like picking ambrose over mustard in the one day side against New Zealand and of course the decision to bring in pattinson over tremlett. I know they were wanting a swing bowler so why didn't they just choose hoggard or jones who is very good at reverse swing.
But that's in the past Geoff Miller and co. really need to make the right selecting decisions for the Edgbaston Test. This is the team I would pick:
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan(Captain)
Pietersen
Bell
Prior
Broad
Flintoff
Anderson(Nightwatchman)
Sidebottom/Jones
Panesar
In my opinion anderson deserves to bat at 9 because of his performance in this test match and to make him Englands regular nightwatchman even if hoogard comes back in to the side. And I think Ambrose has had his time to impress for England which has been very disapointing apart from the century he made in New Zealand. If Sidebottom is fit put him in for pattinson because i think he is just another one test wonder. But if he isn't put jones in because i think he's ready because his bowling figures are exceptional for worcestershire and I agree with what he says that he thinks he is as good as he was in 2005 when we won the ashes.
And finally i think vaughan's runs will come just like kallis' runs will come but in my opinion if england loses this series he should lose his captaincy to either pietersen, strauss or cook, even if he scores many runs in these final two tests. But if he doesn't i think he should be kept in the team because when he became captain for England he was the world's best batsman. And I think he became that good because he did not have the burden of being captain Nassa Hussain did.
Complain about this comment
Kapil_Devil - yep, Broad's main job is as a bowler. And yes - he's been expensive and not garnered a hatful of wickets - yet. He's had some catches drop and edges fall short and with a slight amount more luck could have had 25-30 wickets by now.
He's also often described as a very intelligent bowler.
In those last seven Tests, he's got more wickets than Flintoff in Flintoff's last seven Tests. Yes, he could have started better - at the moment he has only done as well in wicket taking terms as Glenn McGrath did in his comparable early Tests...
I'd say he's worth sticking with. He seems to have the "Big Match temperament" and he's always improving.
Complain about this comment
I think Broad deserves a rest, and he needs to find either (a) an extra yard's pace, (b) the ability to swing it around corners, or, and most likely, (c) McGrath-esque, pinpoint accuracy. Then his bowling would live up to his fantastic lower-order batting. His knock today was genuine heroism, but he looks tired, and needs some time out of test cricket. I thought Hoggard was unlucky to miss out on this test, especially on his home ground, where England ended up really lacking a truly dependable, economic bowler. He deserves a run-out on the swing bowler's ground that is Edgbaston, even if it's just to have a fitting swansong. If Strauss was unfortunate in this test, Vaughan, KP and Fred all need to get their heads down and get what Boycott would describe as "proper runs".
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
KP
Bell
Fred
Prior
Anderson (deserves promotion for his gutsy innings)
Hoggard
Panesar
Sidebottom
Complain about this comment
AndyCooke
Re Broad, fair enough, stick with him, but his batting stats should be a bonus, not what everyone is talking about!!!
As for luck, blah, blah, blah, like I said earlier luck only plays a small part. If you have world class players it's funny how lucky they get. Would England have taken 8 SA wickets today, with that bowling attack. Or would they have been 'unlucky' again.
As for mentioning McGrath in realtion to anything to do with this bowling attack, well.........
Re Flintoff, you'll see from my earlier post that all my critisims of Broad's bowling apply to Flintoff as well. He dosen't take enough wickets. Still, I guess he's just really unlucky.
Complain about this comment
Spot on Kapil. Broad is in there to take wickets, he is not doing that fullstop.
There are better bowlers than him and better batsmen. Where does he fit in?
Complain about this comment
Too many of these fantasy teams putting Bell at #3; we've tried it before and it did not work. But I can't see that parachuting Shah straight into #3 is any good either - I like him as a cricketer, but I just don't see him as a world class Test #3.
But who else is there? Who's our Ponting/Dravid/Jayawardene? Vaughan's the only one with the remotest claim of the experience and history of success there. KP or Strauss are probably next in line, but most of their success has come in the positions they're already in. You can shuffle the others around as much as you like, but you're making compromises whichever way you do it.
I'm not sure there's room in the team for both Broad and Collingwood - Broad may be there for his bowling, but lately he's looked less like a specialist bowler, and more like an all-rounder who could develop into a very useful no 6 - after the fashion of Andrew Symonds: 5th bowler and aggressive, gutsy batsman.
My ideal team, current form notwithstanding, would be:
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
KP
Bell
Broad
Fred
Foster
Sidearse
Anderson
Monty/Jones/Harmison - depending on conditions
I do agree with the earlier comment about needing a coach with international success as a player. Some more aggressive, dynamic tactics instead of this "stick to the plan no matter how obvious it is it isn't working" rubbish. The captain and players need to be able to think for themselves and pose the kind of consistent threat you associate with Australia and the Saffers. We're very good when conditions favour us, but once other teams get a foothold, England appear to freeze in terror.
Let's sack the entire backroom staff and bring Gough in as coach.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Mr Gooch, I must disagree. To win a test match you need a bowling attack that can take 20 wickets and without the opposition ammassing 500+ in one innings - something England have struggled to do in recent times except against NZ.
The return of Freddie and the emergence of Broad is great news for England as it means the team can play 5 bowlers and bat down to no. 8. Consider the last ashes where we had 4 bowlers and could only bat down to 7!
A great positive to take from this game is the batting of England's lower order which further supports the arguement for 5 bowlers.
Wholesale change would be a knee-jerk reaction to one bad test. Sidebottom back for Pattinson obviously and bring in a different wicky for the struggling Amrose if a better wicky/batsman exists in England. Oh why did Russell and Stuart have to clash careers? We would be made up with either right now!
Complain about this comment
When we have 4 bowlers at Lords everyone shouts we need 5 bowlers, we need Freddy!
Now everyone starts to say that we now need 6 batsmen. Add the wicket keeper and the sums dont add up.
Only the best sides in history have been able to afford the luxury of five bowlers and win consistently, and that isnt the current England side.
As hard as it why dont people face facts, we dont have five quality bowlers, we dont even have four. What we have is some decent bowlers who arent going to win us every match and who arent going to bowl out good batting sides on good batting pitches. I have alot of time for Sidders, Anderson, Monty and the others, in the right conditions they can bowl out sides but they are not the Windies of the eighties, or the Aussies of the nineties. Get over it.
Similarily we dont have Adam Gilchrist, and Alec Stewart is long gone. Im sick of the selectors and commentators see sawing over the batting/glove skill. Im amazed anyone would willingly keep wicket for England considering the intense scrutiny placed on them.
England went into this match with a fragile top six, Vaughans a shadow of his former self (despite a ground out ton against NZ), and Ambrose is in the side to keep wicket not bat at 6. To make matters worse we chose two all rounders in Freddy and Broad (Broad is not a strike bowler, and that has been obvious for some time), its effectively a one trick line-up that if it fails first time round is incapable of saving a match.
Four strike bowlers:
Anderson
Monty
Sidders
Tremlett/Jones depending on fitness
Find a true grinder to cement the batting, all the best sides have had one,
Make a decision over the keeping and keep a true gloveman, if he gets runs good, if not live with it.
Unless we find a keeper that can bat I dont see any room for Freddy, his batting has always been iffy and his bowling hostile but never destructive enought to warrant a place in a 4 man attack. Please no more mentioning of 2005!
Complain about this comment
er.. I meant to put Shah at 5 instead of Bell.
Complain about this comment
Kapil_Devil,
Luck plays a small part - over a large enough sample. With a small sample (such as early on in a bowler's career), the "bad luck" ones can easily overwhelm the figures. In the longer run, luck does even out, of course - for every dropped catch or edge that falls short, there will be a fluky wicket off of a dog of a ball.
If McGrath's 19 wickets at 43.68 in his first 8 Tests are irrelevant, then so be it. Should he have been dropped by the Aussies at that point as obviously not a wicket-taker at Test level? :)
Complain about this comment
I am always perplexed by England supporters. We beat New Zealand, so they are obviously rubbish. We lose against South Africa, who are better than us, and we are rubbish.
Surely people should get some enjoyment from the game itself? In the first test we were ahead for 3 days, and a passive pitch, good batting and tired bowlers all contributed, but it was a good even contest.
Here, we batted poorly, were unlucky bowling, against a side that batted wisely and then failed to apply ourselves in the 2nd innings. However, we are not down and out. We have to face facts that we don't have a huge pool of brilliant players waiting in the wings.
I hope we come back in the next test, to make it a good series. Cricket is such a game of psychology that we could win, even though we don't have as much talent on paper.
We can't pretend that we were a more skilled team than the Aussies in 2005, but we won because of determination and all round team performances, and because we annoyed the hell out of them.
I was amazed by Broad's batting today, just some beautiful and dismissive shots. He and Cook are 2 England players that could be great (Pietersen could be great, but he will never apply himself), if given the perserverence and respect.
Anyway, Test cricket is a wonderful thing, such a myriad of possibilities and I thank god that I have a brain to appreciate it. I hope that in the future 20/20 will go off in a rugby league style and be its own sport with its own players, and leave cricket to people that like it.
Complain about this comment
I'd consider having Matt Prior in the team but only as a specialist batsmen, the guy really isn't up to international keeping apart from maybe 20/20 and the whole world knows it,
Id love to see Chris Read back but it won't happen so I'd go for mustard as at least he settled into the one day team ok. Also when is Shah going to be given a chance!
Complain about this comment
GusLogie,
Your suggestion is crazy, putting batting before the wicket keeping position! Wicket keeping is a huge part the game, how many times do you see dropped catches and keeping errors (Geraint Jones) cost huge runs and games? Putting just anyone behind the stumps is a crazy suggestion, and is more likely to loose you more games then one person scoring no runs!
Complain about this comment
We didn't win the first test because we couldn't get twenty wickets and so we went with five bowlers and still struggled to bowl South Africa out.
We can't then complain that now we have a bad batting performance we now need six batsmen. The reason we lost the second test was not because we missed Collingwood's 7 runs!
With Freddie in the side instead of Collingwood we are more threatening with the ball and have a little more batting.
The reasons we lost the second test are varied, but I'll give you three Strauss, Vaughn and Ambrose are all seriously limited batsmen and need replacing. Pattinson is not a test match standard bowler and third South Africa are just a plain better team than England.
Complain about this comment
Two comments: the bottom 5 batsmen made more than the top 6; could the BBC commentators regularly say more about the state of the wicket? This would be a help for those from abroad who read your sage comments
Complain about this comment
You know, the problems start at the top and the more is see of Peter Moores the more he reminds me of Steve McClaren.
Oh, and the more I see of KP and Freddie the more they remind me of David Beckham, (and I don't mean ability wise.)
I don't know if you heard Boycs story about Brian Close today but that's what you need in the England dreeing room. A senoir pro who isn't afraid to tell these 'stars' when they've been prats.
Geoff should have a senoir role close to the team and not just as a batting coach. He may be a bit full of himself but he's been there and done it. Neither would he be afraid to ruffle a few feathers.
English cricket needs a reality check, quickly.
Complain about this comment
Dominic1980,
At last someone can see sense! Pick Read, not only is he the best keeper but his batting since he last played for England has got much better, he can't do any worse then any of the recent keepers to play for England.
Complain about this comment
Take issue slightly with the criticism of Strauss, he was desperately unlucky twice in this game. He is the only England batsman with the ability to bat time, and he just got a real gem in the second innings that he could do very little without. Vaughan is becoming a worry, I'd agree, but you can't by any stretch of the imagination describe him as a "limited" batsman. When he gets going, he's better even than KP. Ambrose and Pattinson have gotta go though. Roll on Prior and Hoggy!
Complain about this comment
It is a difficult situation for England. They have to score 400 runs in their first innings and get twenty wickets in a test match. Both of these cannot occur currently at the same time. If England want to win, then they need five bowlers and Ambrose needs to go. I think Foster should come in because he is a better gloveman. With regards Vaughan, there are two questions: is there a better captain available and is there an obvious batting replacement. The answer to both questions is no, and once he is stripped of the captaincy it is virtually impossible to come back. New Zealand found that out with Fleming recently.
Complain about this comment
65: Freddie Flinstone
I know my suggestion is crazy .... but what a bonus in any Test side's top 6 to have a convincing wicket-keeping batsman.. the luxury of playing 5 bowlers. Think Alex Stewart, the extreme example of Adam Gilchrist, what a fine player Mark Boucher has been for the Boks. We don't have anything remotely close.
on a lighter note ....
68: Kapil_Devil
Boycs story today about Brian Close waiting at the top of the stairs. Steam coming out of his ears, a bunch of fives waiting for the dismissed batsman (was it Padgett?). Going round the back, cadging a fag before having to face the wrath of Captain Close. Absolute classic, had me in stitches ......
Complain about this comment
Team should be
Cook
Bell
Shah
Pietersen (c)
Bopara
Flintoff
Ambrose
Broad
Sidebottom
Anderson
Panesar
I agree with others who believe that Vaughan must go. Pietersen is the one quality batsman whose position is solid within the team. Despite his ego he is greatly respected within the dressing room and I believe would make a great captain. With sidebottom back and fred in the team the side has enough firepower to take twenty wickets. Ambrose deserves a longer chance, his keeping has been pretty solid (unlike Prior) and his batting is unquestionably better than Foster. Broad should be kept at 8 where he has had success (like Gilchrist 7 for Australia). I also think that Shah and Bopara deserve runs in the team for their quality performances for their respective counties over the last couple of seasons. Vaughan's majesty is too rare and Strauss is not a good long term choice
Complain about this comment
Monty's return on paper at Headingley is quite good (10 wks in 3 test). He took 6 wickets against Pakistan which was heralded as quite a feat on an unhelpful pitch. Fair enough pitches haven't been that helpful so far this series but as someone said on the TMS box its unlikely Vettori would have finished Lord's Test wicketless, add onto that the fact the SA aren't exactly known for their playing of spin bowling and that he's a rabbit with the bat and the case for his inclusion is pretty thin until he regains some form
Complain about this comment
From the original blog entry:
"Top of the agenda will be whether to stick with five bowlers or revert to the policy that served them well at Lord's."
Oh yes, I remember that policy. It was the one that only managed three wickets in the last two days of the test.
Last week everyone was arguing for a five-man attack, now the momentum has gone back towards a four-man attack because having five didn't work.
Michael Vaughan said that the inclusion of an extra bowler had weakened the batting. I completely disagree with him - Flintoff came in for Collingwood and scored more runs in each innings than Collingwood has in quite a while. Besides, having five bowlers should not stop Cook, Strauss, Vaughan, Bell, Pietersen from scoring heavily; indeed it places more responsibility on them to play sensibly and not get out foolishly as nearly all of them did.
The criticism of Darren Pattinson is misplaced. He was the only player to take a wicket on day two, and the first to take one on day three. England went a long time without a bowler other than Pattinson taking a wicket.
He came into the side, was asked to do a job, and he did it. His batting for the tenth wicket partnership with Stuart Broad showed a bit of patience and stubbornness that many of England's top order lacked. He doesn't have the class to be a Test bowler, but that is the selectors' problem, not his.
Complain about this comment
My England Team for the 3rd test:
Cook
Strauss (c)
Pietersen
Collingwood
Flintoff
Prior (wk)
Broad
Sidebottom
S Jones
Panesar
Anderson
In other words drop Vaughan - he is quality, but needs to get some runs in County Cricket. As a replacment I would consider Rob Key, who's an excellent captain, and always performs well with the bat in all forms of the game (including Test Cricket when he was unlucky to get a run in the side), but Collingwood just gets the nod. Pattinson's inclusion was a joke, and didn't work, and Simon Jones is performing brilliantly for Worcs (he can swing it FAST both ways, with new or old ball). Definitely get rid of Ambrose - Prior is batting far better and will improve his glovework with practice
Complain about this comment
Going in with four bowlers when one of them is a guy who missed 18 months of Test cricket with ankle problems is very risky. In Flintoff gets injured, you're then down to Anderson, Sidebottom (if fit) and Panesar.
I've said this before on these forums and I will say it again: England's batting has been the problem for years and still is. The best sides become the best through their batsmen scoring heavily and regularly. South Africa in the past had a better seam attack than the one on display but they didn't have six batsmen who could score consistently. It didn't matter that they had Pollock, De Villiers, Donald, Macmillian, Matthews, someone unusual like Brett Schultz etc because they didn't have sufficient class in their top six to make the runs when needed, as typified by the batting record of the captian in those days, Hansie Cronje. For all his leadership qualities, an overall average of 36 with the bat is poor.
So the South Africa side of today aren't as good with the ball but they have batting depth. Of the top six, only Kallis is out of form. Given his record over the last few years, he's been due a drop in form but he makes up for it by taking a few wickets. Smith has a fine record despite looking ugly with the bat, Mackenzie has come back in great fashion, Prince is assured, Amla ha simproved massively, Kallis has proven he's top quality, de Villiers is up there, Boucher's no mug with the bat... they're a very powerful unit. When you have guys who can score runs, you can get away with a bowling attack that isn't top notch.
This is where England differ. Even during the Ashes in 2005, we rarely won games thorugh our batting. We're a side who very rarely bat the opposition out of the game. Our bowlers won us the Ashes in 2005. Our bowlers got us out of the mire agianst New Zealand in the winter. Our bowlers toiled manfully against Sri Lanka only to see the batsmen flump. It's ludicrous seeing Stuart Broad play with such freedom when the top order folded so meekly today.
I believe England need five bowlers. For Edgbaston, we need one of Harmison and/or Simon Jones back. They are the two quickest guys about who are in good form and we need someone different. Sidebottom will hopefully be back fit and replacing Pattinson. People have called for the head of Strauss which is absurd given his batting in the last Tets in NZ and against NZ last series. Similarly with KP.. that's the mark of genius. He can entertain and infuriate in equal measures.
I can never figure out why people think that it will only take four bowlers to bowl a side out yet it'll take six out and out batsmen in order for England to score good runs. So let's go for five out and out batsmen, Flintoff doing bat and ball duties, Matt Prior to come right back in, and an England pace attack with some new edge to it.
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
KP
Bell
Flintoff
Prior
Sidebottom
Panesar
Simon Jones
Anderson
Complain about this comment
#74 - Your point is invalid.
Panesar didn't finish wicketless...
Overs 29.2
Maidens 6
Runs 65
Wickets 3
They are the most respectable figures of all the bowlers on a pitch with nothing for a spinner,
Complain about this comment
AB de Villiers made a sublime hundred yesterday and took an outstanding catch today. But everyone will only ever remember him as a cheat.
Complain about this comment
The fact is that we all knew that Ambrose should not be batting at 6. Why then did the selectors send him out there at 6 when it was known he was a test 8? Why is Vaughan given special treatment despite many failures, with his last ton against a weak New Zealand attack? Why has Prior been kept in the cold despite three division one championship tons and one day runs? Why is Bell not made to play more domestic cricket because his 199 was made on a very docile bitch and surely is not a good barometer of his true value in the side?
Perhaps keeping Broad in to bat at 8 is wise at the moment, helping to consolidate the batting.
We'll then be able to see at the end of the summer how his bowling has progressed.
Vaughan needs to be sacked now to give maximum time until the next Ashes for a new skipper to come in and take control of the team.
It is clear we need 5 bowlers to try and take 20 wickets and hence the need for 2 of them to at least be able to ake test 50's to try and get a score of 400 plus.
Team for next test:
Cook
Strauss
Key? Shah?
Pietersen
Key? Shah? Bell?
Prior+
Flintoff
Broad
Anderson
Sidebottom
Panesar
Flintoff - pace
Anderson/Sidebottom - swing
Broad - seam bowler
Panesar - makes a balanced attack with left arm spin.
A balanced side looking to the future...
Complain about this comment
#78
Sorry, was referring to 2nd innings of Lord's test when I said he finished wicketless. However Morkel, Harris and Ntini who he dismissed in this test don't exactly represent the cream of the SA batting line up.
Complain about this comment
Totally agree with #77 about England rarely batting sides out of the game. Most often we find ourselves behind on points at the end of day 3 but then go on to play our best cricket on days 4 and 5 of a test and take command then. Not such a great strategy against SA who are too good a team for that and won't let us off the hook like NZ did.
Complain about this comment
"The result was that England started the match with five specialist batsmen and ultimately they paid for that decision." How can the Five batsmen decision be the cause of the defeat? The top five had 2 innings each = 10 innings, of which only one reached 50! On a pitch on which the SAfricans scored 500+! So who was this sixth batsman who would have made all the difference? Oh.... I know..... Collingwood.
Complain about this comment
thunderwhct no. 80
THAT is exactly the team I would have. For your batsmen, Key and Bell. Captain? Strauss.
Complain about this comment
understandably broad needs to perform with the ball as well as the bat but i can't see how there is any debate that broad should be given the chance to bat in flintoff's old position of 6. broad then has a chance to do some proper batting with england's upper order. broad can then be used as an all rounder in regards to bowling and not as primerily a bowler and he can really start to fufill the potential he has.
Complain about this comment
In all honesty today was a shambles. I do believe that all the batsmen should be placed in a room, on their own, with the great geoffrey Boycott. England need to be patient and see off the two days by only playing the necessary balls and occasionaly playing the odd half volley or bad ball. They did not do this and they paid the price for it. This was the main reason for defeat.
However, what cannot be avoided is the balance of the team. We need to look back at our ashes winning team.
5 quality test batsmen
1 all rounder
1 wicket keeper who can bat a bit
4 quality bowlers
to me the team needed for the next test is
1, Strauss
2, Cook
3, vaughan (give him time)
4, Kp
5, Bell
6, Flintoff
7, Broad
8. Read
9, Sidebottom
10, Anderson
11, Monty
Read is a decent no 8 who can post decent 50's and is undoubtedly the best keeper in the land
the only problem is jones, he is a fantastic bowler and deserves a place in any side, for me he would replace either broad or anderson or sidebottom
Complain about this comment
I would call up a squad of say 14/15 so we can have a proper try out in the nets and see who comes out on top.
Im all for Jones coming back into the side but can we get away with him bowling 5 over spells if we are fielding for 2 days again?
Also the balls that are being used this season are pretty crap and havent been swinging as much as before, they also loose shape pretty fast. Would this mean that Jones wouldnt be as effective?
some big decisions are going to have to be made.
Complain about this comment
Why not convert Collingwood to WK. In the past when this has been suggested, the concern was we would lose his talents in the field. Well, we've lost them already and you cannot tell me that his fielding skills would not allow him to at leat make a half decent WK, certainly on a par with what we currently have.
It would be a win win situation, the middle order would have that gritty batsman so clearly missing today.
Also, I might be wrong but wasn't Stewart a convert. It's worth a bash, what have we got to lose?
Complain about this comment
I think the overall review of the test here was quite correct. However all the Criticism that Vaughn has come in for may be a little harsh lets not forget he captained us to ashes victory he's batting may not be at its prime at the moment but have we got a better captain? collingwood cant get in the test team and the ODI team isnt winning anything. Vaughn has to stay but maybe dop down to 5 as suggested. Ambrose should never have been selected in the first place Foster is playing amazing this year at essex but doesnt seem to get any recognition from the selectors. Equally Shah seems to have been overlooked rather than playing 5 bowlers (if you can call Pattinson a test bowler) play shah at 6 meaning there are 6 specialist batsmen hopefully eaualling to a decent score.
In the bowling department Harmison and Hoggy have had their chance (although Hoggys withdrawl was unfair) Simon Jones has been ripping through attacks this year surely warranting selection primarily for the lack of pace and menace we have at the moment. Panesar has done nothing in the last few games and if we havent got a spinner doin much why not jsut leave it to the part timers and seemers. I mean Michael Clarke and Symonds arent to bad for Australia now are they?
Team for edbaston should be as follows:
Cook
Strauss
Bell
Pieterson (part time spin)
Vaughn (part time spin)
Shah
Foster
Freddie
Broad
Anderson
Jones
although if we cant decide who the goloves whould go to then why not let Cooky have them stick an extra batsman in and a make do keeper who can catch. (not advised but eliminates the problem of keeper and this is how we found the one and only alec Stewart)
Complain about this comment
Cook
Complain about this comment
Graham Gooch suggesting an Essex player........ what a surprise.
James Foster whilst an excellent keeper is absolutely pants with the bat and has done nothing on flat Essex wickets for the past 3 seasons.
To suggest his name is utter utter utter rubbish.
Gooch get a grip and give the man is possesion some support. Failing that suggest a realistic replacement and not your man who has done nothing, I repeat nothing to merit a recall.
Baffoon.
Complain about this comment
meant to be:
cook
strauss
bell
collingwood
flintoff
prior
broad
anderson
jones
tremlett/hoggard
Complain about this comment
oh... and of course KP
Complain about this comment
We need to drop Cook and Strauss.
They just don't score enough big hundreds.
Bring in Horton and move Broad up to open.
Complain about this comment
Broad shows too much promise to be dropped.
I think we will have to bring Prior in for Ambrose. The latter's batting is not strong enough and we will have to trust to luck that Prior can hold on to a few more. However, it occurs to me that the selectors have gotten themselves into a mess that might never have happened at all had they stuck with Geraint Jones - a better keeper than Prior, and a better batsman than Ambrose.
Pattinson, of course, goes out. Sidebottom will probably come back in if fit, though personally I would take a gamble on Simon Jones. Harmison is a tempter, but he doesn't tour and I therefore think he must be forgotten.
Complain about this comment
Five batsmen will never be enough if they don't turn up! I can't for the life of me see what is wrong with five batsmen if, in addition, we have a reasonably competent WK-batsman and Freddie and Broad are doing enough with the ball to merit their continued inclusion, because they can be very useful with the willow. Looks pretty good to me!
The problem, of course is that we don't have five consistently good front-line batsmen -- we are very far from that -- and we are still missing a home-grown Gilchrist, or someone just half as good.
Gentlemen, it is the bowlers who are doing England proud, over and over again, and the batsmen who are throwing away the fruits of their labours.
I hate to keep harking back to the 2005 Ashes team, but one has to has some kind of model not too distant in time. It was a model that worked rather well against an Aussie team at its best. We had five batsmen, Geraint Jones and five bowlers. Only Tresco is missing from the five man batting line-up, obviously a very big absence. Of the other batsmen, only Bell is currently doing much better than he did then. Strauss - who formed such a potent opening partnership with Tresco, one of the most exciting and inspiring things I have seen in English cricket over the last years - is not a shadow of the man he was then. Vaughan was having trouble with the bat even then, but still managed to conjure up the occasional big innings. The success of that team did a lot of good to his stature as captain, which he is still dining out on, though, as he confessed at the time, he was not the only man responsible. Duncan Fletcher had a lot do do with it, too.
There is not much more to say about the WK-batsman, except that he did a pretty good job, with bat and gloves, and his successors have only very occasionally come up to the same standard.
Then we had five bowlers, which I have always argued for. We were lucky that four of them were at the very top of their game and had a secret weapon that, although not entirely new, the eternal enemy did not, reverse swing. It is difficult to overestimate its effect on that series.
The most effective reverse-swingers, Simon Jones and, some way behind hiim, Freddie, have not played any sort of role in the team since then. Fortunately, none of our recent opponents have been able to have been able to develop the skill , so it doesn't matter too much that it is only Anderson, among our current bowlers, that has.
What lesson should we take from the fact that the remnants of the 2005 "dream-team" are doing such a poor job? It is easy to argue that we have lost, probably for ever, that extraordinary four-man seam attack. It really was very special. But you only have to look at what happened that year to see that, when England took to the field, they usually had a big total behind them, often racked up at such a speed that it gave England a huge psychological advantage.
Our current bowling line-up is not all that impressive but I would argue that it is not the real problem. You can't expect our bowlers to defend such pathetic totals as that in the recent test: 203!! Vaughan knows that that was rubbish and said as much.
I think I have gone on too much. I hope the selectors, in their upcoming meeting spend very much more time than I have debating what most of us consider a genuine crisis. If their jobs are not on the line, they certainly should be.
Complain about this comment
Why don't the selectors sit down at the start of a series and select 16 or 20 players to form "a squad".
This squad should consist of the following.
1. The 11 most selected players from the previous series (unless there was someone injured or "has to be dropped, then you would move down 1".
2. 9 players picked by "last 10, 4 day game stats" from county cricket. This should be 4 batsmen, 4 bowlers, 1 wicketkeeper.
This would ensure.
1. Competition for places, sadly lacking in this central contract rubbish.
2. Give an impetus to the players at County level to up their standards.
3. If the "dropped" players are so good and don't deserve to be dropped, they will be back for the next series or the one after that, as we now play 3 or 4 series a year.
Complain about this comment
penny's worth
1 cook
2 bell
3 shah
4 kp
5 strauss c
6 bopara
7 broad
8 prior w
9 flintoff
10 anderson
11 tremlett
i think the top 5 are the best 5 english batsmen. one of them is a better spinner than we give him credit for. 6 and 7 are batting and bowling all-rounders, exciting young players who have proven they can bat to the situation. 8 is the best batting wicket keeper in the country and he's in form. 9 is the strike bowler who bats a bit. 10 and 11 are the opening bowlers.
whoever has the balls to drop the spinner will win the next game i reckon.
Complain about this comment
after that miserable defeat changes need to be made!! england are vastly hyped up but beating a below avg new zealand side isnt that great an achievement! up against a decent south africa side england have been outplayed in all departments!!
I think vaughn has been very poor of late but should move to open the batting wher he has been best.
bringing back simon jones is a risk as he is prone to injury but a risk that should be taken. there doesnt seem to be any fire in the bowling attack. all bowlers can definitely do a job but i dont think the opposition fear any!!!
owais shah has been very consistent with hs batting an should definitely be given a chance..
My 11 would be...
cook/strauss
vaughn
shah
pieterson
bell
prior
flintoff
harmison/broad
anderson
s jones
panesar
Complain about this comment
the simple answer is englands bowling attack is lacking a strike bowler which is needed in tremlett/harmison/jones to be able to bowl quality sides out.
Monty needs to develop more variation to succeed on better batting strips as when its not turning he is ordinary.
If jones is in the team as part of a 5 man attack you don't need a spinner as the ball will still be swinging at 60 overs
Complain about this comment
also ambrose must go you can't carry 2 batsmen and a bowler with the average attack and batting line up we have
Complain about this comment
2 questions have to be asked, is the captian worth his place, if so he has to improve his batting, Australia would never have someone they had to carry. But again there is no one out there scoring to trouble any of our current batsmen.
Jones has to come back, but is it Anderson or Sidebottom. That is 50/50. I think Sidebottom, he has good figures against weak teams, where Anderson will always be a wicket taker as some stage.
Freddy against Collingwood, no argument, 40 overs 77 runs, if we had someone like Jones at the other end then they would have to take Freddy on and then he would be in the wickets. Monty has to stay. We only need 4 bowlers if we have the right ones
Maybe one more question, the best keeper in the country is Foster, same amount of runs as Ambrose. So no difference except he is the best keeper. Its bowlers who win matches, batsmen should save them.
Cook
Straus
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Flintoff
Broad
Foster
Jones
Anderson
Monty.
Complain about this comment
Yes, four bowlers plus a few overs from KP, or Colly, or Shah, or Bopara. I can't see any of those being much less effective with the ball than Broad. If anyone thinks he is the sixth best batter in the country then pick him. But he's not, so don't. Scoring quick runs is the best way to set up test match wins, but batsmen also need to be able to occupy when the opposition get a big first innings lead. If England players do not have that flexibility then they are not test quality. Anyone calling for Strauss' head again has no idea. Monty is going nowhere as a bowler, must something better out there, Swann maybe. Vaughan, well it is getting tougher to justify his place, especially after the Pattinson pick (by the way MV, I have read or heard no-one being critical of Pattinson, but plenty aimed at those who chose him), but he will definitely see this series out and take it from there. Still a good skipper and still a talented player. So its
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Flintoff
Ambrose
Swann
Sidebottom
Anderson
Complain about this comment
There is a real symmetry between the states of English football and English cricket. Both are characterisied by frustration, chronic underachievement and a seemingly infinite number of administrators/captains who only excel in serving up inane platitudes.
Complain about this comment
The more I think about it; England's defeat has less to do with selection as it has with key 5 batsmen not performing or getting themselves out. Out for 200 1st innings, the team knew by lunchtime Day 2 they were on the rack, looking down a barrel! Headingly a result pitch. 350-400; they would have had a base to compete. They didn't and got punished. Bowlers did OK, but without world class penetration Steyn/Morkel turned up with. On this pitch Monty didn't offer much; should 5 seamers/quicks been picked (either Harmison/Hoggard?). Anderson/Freddie were overbowled for this match in hindsight?
A team follows their skipper, tactically Michael Vaughan is world class; but if he is getting out early at No3 (last four innings) and not making a score, it puts needless pressure on Pietersen, Bell and Ambrose.
Vaughan needs to be proactive and change with Bell to No5. He needs to get his feet moving early and be aggressive
Pietersen was overconfident on this pitch and got himself out KP style in both innings.
Strauss didn't turn up really with runs although he got good balls to get him out. Bell the same this match.
Cook was unlucky to an umpire mistake, good score in the 2nd, but again getting out before a much needed.
Flintoff had a satisfactory match. Bowling solid 40 overs. Unlucky not to get a couple more wickets. Fred is fit which is nice to see. Slip catching outstanding, if the bowling gives him catches. He needs to get his batting footwork moving with Geoff Boycott classes, more fluent and selective and defence tighter. Collingwood's fielding/motivation were missed but Fred bowled well and fully justified his place.
Complain about this comment
The toss was massive in this game. Lets not forget that if Vaughen had won the toss he would of bowled.
The team didn't bet well 1st up and you could also sense a lack of faith and belief in the england side that they could bowl south africa out.
Who did Vaughen chuck the ball to when things where flat.... freddie. The man has not played test cricket for a year and half and he still so far infront of the rest of the bowlers its scary for english cricket.
I think the balance of the side is right. 5 batsmen, a keeper, an allrouder, 3 seamers and a spinner. But unfortunatly the selectors picked the wrong guys.
The top 5 are the best avaliable batsmen in the country. fred is the best all rounder in the country (his batting will get better with time in the middle), the keeper is a good county keeper batsmen not a test keeper.
so what about mustard. He had a good ODI serious in new zealand before gettting injuried. And of course there is mr read. Clearly the best gloveman in the country with a decent county record. Could he do worse over a good run than ambrose, prior and jones??? we all know his keeping is much better.
the seamers have to broad (runs, 85mph, young, bags of potential) and sidebottom (decent pace, consistant and a great atitude)
and then its a choice between, anderson, hoggy and yorkshires bresnan is looking a good man for a chance.
and well monty is the best spinner. no debate on this.
then for the future, rashid should start getting a run in the one day side getting him ready to take freds place as the all rounder. the boy is magic.
and i think we all agree that pattinson was a wasted selection. Did not bring either young potential or experience to fill the gap. a disapointing selection.
Complain about this comment
A couple of points:
- It is ridiculous to suggest that KP can do whatever he wants. Great players like Ponting and Tendulkar have games to suit all occasions, KP needs to prove he belongs in this class. The selectors may not have the guts to tell him but England fans should pile on the pressure.
- Keeping Broad in the side because of his batting ability is nonsense. He is a bowler and should be judged on that discipline alone. He is not Test class, end of story. Giles was kept in the side for far too long because of what he can do with the bat, don't make the same mistake with Broad.
- Pattinson had the second best figures of the quicks, better than that of Flintoff and Broad. One gets the feeling there is a vendetta against him because of his aussie ties. He probably won't get another shot and if he is dropped because of form or lack of variation, Broad should go too.
Complain about this comment
This was perhaps the most disappointing Test I have seen for quite some time from England. So fast were the selectors to have a gas over the return of the great God Flint-off that they decide to bend over backwards to kowtow at his gilded shrine.
To use a schoolyard analogy, Collingwood is the wise leader of the entire ground, where people look at him and they are inspired -- even the ne'er do wells like KP improve themselves while he is around. But then you send the wise leader away and replace him with a punk fresh from the headmaster's office like Flintoff who leads the others to go astray...well, you know what I mean.
And in the end, what did England end up with? More of the same. And the selectors dropped Colly for this shameful backflip? I never understood this absolute insistence that Flintoff is the be-all-end-all savior of England, and I refuse to believe it.
The English Test team is dead to me until Collingwood is restored.
Complain about this comment
...oh and for the record, the Third Test XI should be as follows:
Strauss
Smith (Durham)
Shah
Trott (Warwicks) /Pietersen
*Collingwood
+Read
Mascarenhas (we can't do any worse)
Broad
Sidebottom/Tremlett
Panesar
Jones
Complain about this comment
Here we go again, the people with short memories are back claiming that Chris Read is a good enough bat, to hold his place at test level. Lets be quite clear about this 'No He's Not' and he's proved it. His batting average in the CC, has no bearing on what test players have to bat against, hence why he has failed, yes, time and time again.
It's also no suprise that Gooch thinks Foster should be in the team, anyone from Essex will do, as far as he's concerned, so really his opinion is somewhat tainted in that respect, but lets not forget that Foster is a failure too at test level, just like Read.
Therefore, anybody but past failures Read and Foster!
Complain about this comment
Ambose is not a number 6 but got more runs than Colly has of late.
Complain about this comment
The main problem with pattisons selection was vaughans reluctance to give him a lenghty spell with the new ball his main weapon being line and length with a bit of swing-once england got bowled out for 203 the pressure was on for quick wickets in the afternoon so when he bowled his first 3 overs for about 16(nerves in first test) he was pulled out and banished to third man-england created there own pressure with a poor score-then pattison came back the next day with the older ball The guy is not test class but didnt get a fair crack to apply what skills he has! I think if england play 5 bowlers(i would) vaughan struggles to structure a plan in rotating them he has lost his patience! One bad spell and you get forgotten about until someone needs a rest! We need 2 swing bowlers to open up make them play more regularly and bowl the first 10-12 overs unless someone gets hit around the park then we unleash the likes of freddie and simon jones to inject some pace and fire! Its difficult to drop broad because he has batted like a dream for 2 matches but his bowling only seems to be successful on the back of early wickets from anderson/sidey if that doesnt happen he seems to lack penetration! Prior to come back in for me ambrose is loose on the cut! Freddies best days are gone i think he performed so highly against australia in 2005 with the bat because of pietersons arrival flintoff was always the only aggresive hitter for england at the time pieterson came in blazing so flintoff picked up his own game and was ultra aggressive playing straight-i think they clash! Anyway back to it strauss plays he has had 2 stinky decisions in 4 innings and a peach in the last innings! England need to dig deep get vaughan out at the end of the season they wont do it now and bring colly as captain bat him at 5 he is the gritty fighter we need- the guy has scored a double hundred against the aussies my side would be Strauss
Cook
Bell (accept the guy is hit n miss)
Kp
Colly(cpt)
Prior
Flintoff
Anderson
Hoggard
Sidebottom
Jones
When it favours spin you drop the bowler who isnt performing at the time and pick the monster monty-England have to get broad some rest-his feet looked bad and then get him some speciallist coaching will mcgrath pass on some knowledge maybe-but his batting has been impressive of late
Complain about this comment
Interesting stats of the day :-
Vaughan's last 15 innings : 371 runs @ 24.73
Broad's 11 innings to date : 371 runs @ 41.22
Flintoff and Ambrose scored 103 runs between them in the 2nd Test, unfortunately only 29 of them in the first innings.
And the mamma of all stats, Freddie "Jonah" Flintoff :-
England have lost the last SEVEN Tests Flintoff has played in - one to Sri Lanka, five-nil to Australia and now one-nil down to South Africa. The defeats were so bad he didn't have to bowl 2nd innings in any of the last three. And in those seven Tests, Jonah has scored just 310 runs @ 23.85 and taken 16 wickets @ 40.50. (shouldn't those averages ideally be the other way around, Freddie?!?!)
The last series England won with Flintoff in it was the Ashes in 2005, since when the records with Flintoff in the team are :-
Series* : P4 W0 D2 L2
Tests : P15 W2 D3 L10
*excludes the current series
In that 15 Test period, Flintoff has scored 745 runs @ 28.65 and taken 48 wickets @ 34.52 which isn't too bad, but hasn't won England many Tests. While half the lost Tests have been against the aussies, half the remaining Tests have also been lost and no series won. Not that England have done much else than beat West Indies and New Zealand since the Ashes of 2005.
Maybe the selectors should retain Pattinson and drop Freddie "Jonah" Flintoff.....................
Complain about this comment
The main thing that worried me about England yesterday was the mind set of the batsmen. It was very obvious that England needed to bat for the better part of 2 days to save the match, yet batsmen threw their wickets away.
When betting time, batsmen need to set themselves rules: Outside off, leave it. On stumps, defend. Half volley, hit with technique. On pads, easy runs.
Anderson and Cook showed before lunch that it could be done, it just takes application and patience. Yes it's not pretty but it saves matches. Pietersen got a pretty good ball, but could have left it.
Why, though, did Bell flash at a wide one that he should have left (or possibly guided)? Ambrose batted superbly for 2 hours with Flintoff, before deciding to cut a ball that he didn't need to. Again, concentration. That was his chance to show that he could bat at Test level, and he blew it. And why oh why did Flintoff go into all-out-attack mode when Broad, who we all know can bat, came in? Surely he should have said "Let's be here at the close, regardless of runs scored, and go from there tomorrow"? If Pattinson can bat for an hour, surely Flintoff, who is no longer (in theory) a hot headed youngster, can knuckle down for longer and bat out the day, especially when he'd already done it for 2 hours.
The lack of ability to bat time is worrying. The front line batsmen simply play too many shots. McKenzie managed to score a big 100 without being flamboyant, as did Amla and Prince and De Villiars. You dont need to be smashing 4s all day to make runs. 4 singles an over is a very healthy run rate, and every bowler will put one on the pads to be tucked away for 3 or 4 every few overs.
Broad has the ability to be a class number 7 at Test match level, averaging in the mid 30s. I would not want him at 6, as that puts too much pressure on him. he's enjoying batting at 8 at the moment, and he would bat just as well at 7. Flintoff should be at 6, if he can get his head on, and a keeper/batsman at 8, to take the pressure off him. We've got to stop trying to find a Gilchrist, another doesn't exist.
Yes Broad is struggling with the ball, but remember he only started bowling 5 years ago, his progress is staggering. After 11 tests Glen McGrath had 12 wickets averaging just over 40 - having made his debut aged 23. Broad is still 22, and after 10 tests he has 19 wickets at an average a shade under 50. It wasn't until McGrath had played 2 years of test cricket that he averaged under 30 for a series. Let's give this guy a chance to develop in the best arena. He will be very good.
I would drop Pattinson for Sidebottom. But we have to find a place for Simon Jones before long, possibly at Anderson's expense, his inconsistancy is his downfall unfortunately, despite his good performance this match.
Vaughan is a worry, and I'd like to see him at 1 and Strauss at 3, that may work well.
Complain about this comment
My thoughts on the test:
James Anderson (never a favourite) went miles up in my estimations for his guts yesterday and never giving up with the ball. Fantastic effort.
Only one score of 50+ out of 22 individual innings played is totally unacceptable.
In 1994, 1998 and 2003, SA lead each series before it ended in an England win or a drawn series. I have a feeling this will not be the case this time.
Nothing against Pattinson but what a slap in the face for three of the 2005 'Fab Four' Jones has worked his privates off to get fit and is performing, Hoggard treated unjustly too. However, I don't feel Harmison can ever be trusted to play again for England after his attititude in NZ last winter.
Vaughan should not be dropped. He is a class act and a superb captain.
England strike me as a team caught midships between clinging onto 2005 success and a gentle rebuild in certain areas.
This has felt like a weird summer so far what with the IPL storms, Pattinson selection, ridiculous going off for bad light in tests and scrweing the paying public in the meantime and the Yorkshire registration farce.
Rant over....I still love this game to bits and roll-on Edgbaston.
Complain about this comment
With the emergence of Broad as a genuine batting threat surely it would make sense to have the best wicketkeeper in the team, namely James Foster? Admittedly it may put a strain on Flintoff and Broad to perform at both levels but the below team looks pretty sound.
I'm putting Vaughan in there under duress as realise he's not going to get dropped no matter what scores he get's (which is crazy!)
Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
Pieterson
Bell
Collingwood
Flintoff
Broad
Foster
Sidebottom
Panesar (or Jones depending on pitch conditions)
Complain about this comment
I note Vaughan's comments about the selection of Darren Pattinson in some way affected the team spirit of the side, not that it was Pattinson's fault of course! Isn't it the job of the captain to ensure that team spirit is not affected, that new players are made welcome?
Vaughan is playing a cheap game, condemning by innuendo the new player. It helps to deflect attention away from his own failings at no. 3 and from his participation in the selection of the team. However, we should not be surprised at Vaughan's sleight of hand where the press is concerned. He is, after all, the man who denied using the term "Fredalo" in an interview with the Guardian's Duncan McCrae, when in reality he used the term twice. I believe the apology is still awaited.
Apparently players can play badly (which was the Collingwood situation) and never be dropped as long as the "guys" are happy and like each other. This is Clique England epitomised by Pietersen's public comments about no batting contenders for an England spot being up to the standard of Collie and Bellie. So Owais and Ravi, don't expect a warm welcome if ever you get a chance. And perhaps Harmison should shut up a bit, and humbly recall some of his own indifferent and gutless performances, especially away from home.
As a matter of interest, Pattinson, in 12 first class matches, has achieved the same number of 5-fors (ie. 3) as Flintoff has in 169 matches ( this excludes Tests, in which Flintoff has done it twice). This is not to say he should necessarily retain his place, but he should not be scape-goated.
Shane Warne has made an interesting point about never enforcing the follow on because it can tire the bowlers too much. By following this course, Vaughan denied his bowlers rest, and ensured that in the second test, three days later, they were listless - particularly the young and still developing Broad.
On another note, I'm sure that Ryan Sidebottom is looking forward to the much touted return of Matt Prior behind the stumps. Consider Prior as a batsman if you must, but I understand that an analysis of his test performances setting runs scored against runs conceded by dropped catches and extras, shows Prior to be in deficit. Yet, despite the contribution of missed catches by wicketkeepers to recent test failures by England, "Sound the Bugle" dismisses excellence behind the stumps as inconsequential when he writes about Chris Read's "failures" at Test level. He was in fact a great success in his main wicketkeeping role, and gaining confidence in his batting role with an average of 40 against Pakistan. (We never seem to ask of our opening bowlers that they should be bowler/batsmen, provided that they excel at their bowling). So, it is crass to dismiss the claims of Read or Foster; and if it is thought that Ambrose has kept wicket tolerably, then he could be pushed down the order. But please no Prior behind the stumps, whatever Alec Stewart, Prior's agent , might say.
Complain about this comment
Agree with your comments Goochie but whatever the formula when the wicket isn't doing much and the ball doesn't swing our bowling looks very ordinary.
We haven't had a really explosive quick since John Snow. England desperately needs a Brett Lee type who can cut through on a placid pitch.
Where are all the young strike bowlers that Australia seems to have in endless supply?
Complain about this comment
From reading the comments on here one can deduce.
a) Monty is no good in spite of taking 108 test match wickets in 31 tests.
b)Vaughan is a terrible player and even worse captain, in spite of winning more test matches than any other England captain before him, and scoring 18 test match centuries.
Complain about this comment
Any criticism of KP is harsh and completely unjustified. He was one of the few English batsmen beforehand who could have been identified as capable of a rearguard action. He was actually out playing a defensive shot...just not his day.
Broad creates a dilemma as his batting exploits are masking his current impotent bowling performances. For whatever reason he just doesn't look dangerous with the ball in his hand and lets not forget he is selected as a bowler. Based on the need for 20 wickets maybe he should be rested for the remainder of the series. If a 5 man attack is to be persevered with then Jones or Harmison would be the obvious replacement both proven performers at, or approaching, their best.
The need for wickets should also dictate a change of keeper. Nows the time to return to a quality gloveman and Foster seems to fit the bill.
These changes to personnel will undoubtedly weaken a batting lineup already showing signs of frailty. Maybe the best option is to revert to a 4 man attack. Sidebottom, if fit, to replace Broad and Collingwood or Shah in for Pattinson. Colly has shown signs of a return to form and his bowling is a useful backup. I believe we missed him in the last test and even being horribly out of nick he would have sold his wicket more dearly than some we could mention. But on the other hand I like Shah, a quality performer who surely deserves a decent run in the side. I'm sure we can trust the selectors to get it right this time....rumour is they have also been closely monitoring Bumbles performances for Accrington.
Complain about this comment
Here here, Sir-Benjamin (post 119)! England's performance was poor, but the reaction that always appears here is hilarious.
I said before this test began that Broad should bat at 6. He is streets ahead of Flintoff with the bat and the balance of the side is gained by having both a (potential) batting allrounder (Broad) and a bowling allrounder (Flintoff).
I feel very sorry for Pattinson who is unlikely to see the test arena again (although I would be happy to be proved wrong). Hoggard was unquestionably the man for the job. Great at bowling to left-handers and would have had Smith lbw early on.
Harmison can't be brought back unless he is 100% committed to England, home and abroad.
Jones might be ready and would have been another possibility.
Ambrose shouldn't have had the pressure of batting at 6. I'm not the person to say if he is the best glovesman in the country, if he is, he stays, if not bring in the man who is. Prior may be scoring plenty of runs, but with Broad and Flintoff at 6 and 7, the wicketkeeper can bat at 8.
The same people saying bring back Prior will no doubt want him dropped if he spills a chance.
To be honest, SA are a better test side than us. Monty could make a difference, given the right surface.
Finally, I wish Pieterson would stop looking at the pitch when he gets out. It's not to blame!
Complain about this comment
Poor talent + Poor Leadership = Poor Performance.
Vaughan is surely on borrowed time with the bat. At what point did his skill as a captain become worth more than the runs he needs to score? We are not a consistently successful side so either his captaincy is deficient or we lack talent. Graham Smith showed what you need to be able to do as a captain in tough matches: set the tone with a solid individual performance in at least one innings of any match, and for a top order batsman that means something at least approaching a 50 in each match. I note that Graham and Michael Atherton seem to be the only England captains of the recent era whose batting was not unduly affected by the captaincy. What is so crushing and undermining about the set up?
A fiery bowling attack like South Africa coupled with England's highest first innings score in ages (at Lord's) must point to a benign pitch, where as the 2nd Test points to a lack of cutting edge in the England attack - perhaps they should be sent some branded 5-blade razors for good measure. As for fire in the belly, only Broad and Anderson seem to be burning. O, there is a lot of work to be done...
Complain about this comment
For many years I have wondered what James Foster has done - or whose Mother he has insulted - to be left out of the England side! Ticking off the wicket-keeper candidates:
- Prior: shows promise as a batsman, but his keeping just isn't good enough.
- Ambrose: both batting and keeping have been exposed in recent tests, needs to go back to County game and improve his technique
- Read: yesterday's man perhaps? Good keeper, but does he score enough runs?
- Mustard: actually worth a punt, would be my second choice, just don't have him opening the batting.
- Foster: first class centuries under his belt, excellent keeper, and above all a consistent performer.
On the bowling front I'm afraid Pattinson will join that illustrious list of one-test wonders. It's a shame really, he shouldn't have been picked for this test. A lot of people have been saluting Anderson for his recent performances, and I must tip my hat to him. However, a bit like KP, there are two Jimmys. The one we have seen more often this summer, but alas it's usually the inconsistent Jimmy who sprays the ball all over the place that usually turns up. It's harsh I know, but I would drop him to 12th man.
I think the Engalnd attack needs Hoggy for his control and movement and the newly fit Simon Jones for his pace and aggression. These guys in as straight swaps for Jimmy and Pattinson would provide the cutting edge England desperately need. For the record I have never rated Harmison, he's just not consistent enough. Yes, he had a great year 5 years or so ago, but how many even half decent performances have there been since? Not enough is the answer.
So, my team for Edgbaston would be:
Vaughan
Strauss
Cook
Bell
KP
Foster
Broad
Freddy
Hoggy
Jones
Monty
Vaughan needs to go back to opening, he's at his best there. Strauss has his detractors, but I'd stick with him. Cook can move down to three easily enough, the lad shows real promise. I've always been a fan of Ian Bell, he needs to step up again with a big innings. KP can come in at 5 and play his natural game, you're never going to change how he plays, and you can't ignore the raw talent. Foster slides in nicely at 6, and I would promote Broad up the order to 7 - I hope his excellent progress continues. Freddy at 8 takes a bit of the pressure off him, and the remaining order is obvious.
Complain about this comment
Forgot to say, STOP questioning Vaughan's leadership and place in the team without suggesting an alternative!
Personally, he would still be the first name on my team sheet.
Strauss - possibility as captain, but is is batting form that much better than Vaughan?
Flintoff - errrr, no.
Pieterson - don't be silly.
Vaughan wins.
Complain about this comment
Wonko - like it, although it would be seriously tough on Jimmy A who has clearly been working hard on his all round game (batting and fielding included).
For me it's a toss up between him and Jones at the moment, and I'd have Broad above Foster in the order. Otherwise, I'd be happy with your selection!
Gentlemen, we have a selector in our midst.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, post 125 should have said Ladies and Gentlemen.
Sincerest apologies.
Complain about this comment
James1504Admittedly there is no obvious choice to replace Michael Vaughan captaincy, and he'd probably top my team sheet for the moment yet he is very out of form, and we're not winning matches consistently. I have always been a Vaughan fan, but right now he needs to get some runs from somewhere: a captain who is not contributing to the scoreboard will never be as confident and focused on the job at hand as one who is. And just because there is no replacement does not mean the incumbent is doing a good job. Any player who knows his place is guaranteed in a side can get complacent, so what do we do to get him back on track? What does he need to do? Do other senior squad members need to shoulder more responsibility? Who captains us if he gets injured? Yes, we can debate who on earth would replace a number of players because that is the problem: there are too few players coming through to regularly challenge for places and responsibilities and that situation needs to be addressed.
Complain about this comment
The balance of the team is not so messed up if you have a wicketkeeper who bats. Prior would easily fill the number six spot. I don't like his glove work, but you can't have everything (ie Adam Gilchrist). I'd live with it for allowing four seamers and Monty; Broad seven, Freddie eight.
To be honest, the long tail is eliminated that way. Fred may not be the firebrand of old, but what fielding side would want to see him come in at eight! Jimmy Anderson - now officially England's best player - has earned the nine spot and, frankly, could bat higher.
I am disappointed that Vaughn bowled Flintoff for as many over as he did. No way to handle him on his comeback. Pattinson wass not so bad that he couldn't have bowled more.
Complain about this comment
After watching the batting skills yesterday [Monday ] of bowlers Anderson and Broad [ top scorer ] I suggest for the next Test, England pick just two batsmen, one wicketkeeper, two all-rounders and six bowlers [ which means they'll have eight to call on ]. Also, I would sideline Vaughan who yesterday looked as frightened as a rabbit caught in a car's headlights.
Complain about this comment
I agree with Graham completely - 5 batsmen are not enough. South Africa seem to think the same way as well.
Even though Broad batted really well in the 2nd innings, he is still primarily a frontline bowler who was below par the whole game. I think Flintoff showed, at least for the first part of SA's first innings that he is a superior bowler.
Personally, I think if they do continue with the current 5 bowler team, serious consideration should be given to either Prior coming back and/or Broad batting at six.
That being said here are 2 options for the next test:
1. Strauss
2. Cook
3. Vaughn
4. Pieterson
5. Bell
6. Prior
7. Broad
8. Flintoff
9. Anderson
10. Sidebottom
11. Panesar
If they go with 6 specialist batsmen:
1. Strauss
2. Cook
3. Vaughn
4. Pieterson
5. Bell
6. Shah
7. Flintoff
8. Foster/Ambrose
9. Anderson
10. Sidebottom
11. Panesar.
I think Shah deserves a chance, stemming from the fact that in the one day games he has been more consistent than either Collingwood or Bopara. Bopara shouldn't really be in the running at all, especially after his performances on the batsmen-friendly wickets of Sri Lanka
Complain about this comment
I disagree with people who feel that four bowlers is the way to go!!
England have yet to prove themselves sufficiently with the ball this series, so my thoughts are that we have to give ourselves enough options to bowl out SA.......twice!! We need to have 5 bowlers!
I personally believe that Broad and Fred should stay!! Broads batting is great down the order, and with Freddie, I hope its just a matter of time until we see the best of him. He showed good fight in the 2nd innings at headingley! What I am trying to say is that with these two players, there is a huge amount of batting potential!
As for Timmy Ambrose, I feel his time is coming to an end. Prior had a tough time before being dropped, but he is excellent with the bat! I would sacrifice something with the glove for extra batting! Dont forget Geraint Jones either, He has done a job for England before and is very good player too.
Now down to the eye opener of the week! The selection of Pattinson. This was the most bizzare choice ever! I dont blame the guy and he did give his all, but the selectors need to have a good think about they're doing before selecting an unknown!! Generally, a new bowler will go through the ranks of the one day team and be slowly blooded and climatised to the trends that go with international cricket! So my question is. Why was Pattinson any different to avoid that system?
I'd have personally brought back Harmison (I do expect ridicule for this). He would have definately got something out of the pitch with his height and pace! Plus he is in some serious form for Durham. Simon Jones I believe is ready yet otherwise I'd have chosen him!! Lets keep him fresh for the winter tours and Aussies next year eh?
Complain about this comment
Wonko your talking rubbish mate.
Foster is no where near a no. 6 at test level. He has scored poorly in div 2 of the CC for the last 3 years.
Lets get one thing settled, if you are insisting on playing a keeper at no. 6 than it has to be Prior. He is by far the best batsman of the lot.
You don't need to play the keeper at no. 6 though, with Flintoff and Broad in the keeper can drop to no.8.........
So it's time to play the better gloveman. Who is without any doubt Chris Read. What has Ambrose doen wrong though? He is very good with the gloves if not quite in Rad and Fosters league and is better than bith with the bat. Ambrose at 8 gives us a very good tail.
Complain about this comment
Come on Goochie, that's more see-through than a slapper's blouse!
As soon as I saw the headline about Ambrose's place being under threat, I knew you'd be advocating your Essex chum James Foster for another shot in the side!
Sure, Ambrose isn't a number six batter, but I doubt even you would advocate batting Foster that high, so your comparison is flawed.
Unfortunately everyone who supports the England team wants the next Adam Gilchrist behind the sticks, but that just isn't going to happen - you either have specialist who can bat a bit or a batsman who can keep a bit - either way they will be under immediate pressure to improve their weaker suit.
By the way, just because I've said all this doesn't mean I don't think Foster deserves another go - I'm just querying your motives ;-)
Complain about this comment
Wonko, you are clearly a fair-minded person, claiming James Anderson is not consistent enough, (where have we heard that before???) and then advocating dropping him after what you have admitted has been an improved performance this summer.
How is he supposed to maintain this much-vaunted consistency when you drop him after possibly his most courageous and determined performance? His bowling in this match was exemplary: he bowled really well with absolutely no luck at all, beating de Villiers in particular, umpteen times.
I think it significant (and no coincidence) that Anderson's 'consistency' has been notable this summer when he has had a decent run in the side.
I realize his detractors will never be satisfied even if he takes 10 wickets and scores two fiftties every match for an entire series - and even then some people would call for his head the next game if he only took 9 wickets - but be fair: the lad was asked to be more consistent and he has been the MOST consistent bowler this summer for. Give him some credit.
Even Nasser Hussein (frequently his most vicious critic among the 'opinionators' on SKY) heaped praise on him yesterday, so he must be doing SOMETHING right!!!
Complain about this comment
Just once it would be nice to see a Gooch blog without plugging James Foster.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps Goochie could explain why he's happy to accept KP for what he is but adopted a somewhat different attitude with a certain D I Gower did much the same thing many years ago. We also know you're a Foster fan so we don't need to be told this blog after blog
Complain about this comment
I agree GHBRich.
Give it a rest Gooch, Foster isn't a good enough bat. Everyone knows this.
Let's see some un biast articles eh? Or i'll come down to Chelmsford and take your magic hair restorer away.
Complain about this comment
Basically they should wipe the slate clean and start over again.
Vaughan is a good captain, but isnt scoring enough runs. Should bat at 5.
Cook and Strauss have shown they can cope with the new ball as they showed with a 100+ partnership @ Lords.
Bell would be better at 3.
Leave KP at 4.
Ambrose is not good enough, full stop.
Prior or Mustard are the answer. They score runs in good areas and quickly.
Bowlers, England need to get the fit and firing Harmison and Jones back. They blasted the Ozzies out and are in the right form to do it to South Africa.
Team for Edgbaston :-
Strauss
Cook
Bell
KP
Vaughan
Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Jones
Anderson
Harmison
Panesar to come in for Anderson, if it looks like the wicket will turn.
Complain about this comment
The problem is that we looked like we needed an extra batsman (which was pretty obvious as soon as you saw Ambrose and Fliontoff at 6 and seven), regardless of what the top five do. SAs #6 hit 174 and effectively took the game away from us. When he came in a 143-4, we had a chance of getting tghem for 250 and making a game of it. I said before this match that you would be worried if we were 150-5 with Freddie and Ambrose and that proved to be the case.
However we also need an extra bowler. The seamers used this series have looked pretty placid and to win we need to bowl SA out twice. On the strength of that, I'd retain Broad at 7, as he can at least hold an end up while letting two attacking seamers go from the other. Ideally, they'd be Fred and Siders? So the IX looks like:
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan (c)
Pietersen
Bell
A. Batsman
A. Wicketkeeper
Flintoff
Broad
Sidebottom
Monty
We now bat down to 9, so a top order failure is rescuable. If we find a keeper who bats at six then we can go with an extra bowler. Two major problems wioth this side are
a) Does it have the firepower to bowl out SA twice? Probably not, but would swapping JimmyA for Broad improve the bowling sufficiently to compensate for scoring 20-30 fewer per innings? Probably not. Swapping Broad for Hoggy might mean that the runs you lose in the batting are compensated by runs saved in economy of the bowling attack and a front three of (in form) Siders Freddie ang Hoggy is attractive.
b) Who are the two that come in? Prior is averaging 50+ with the bat so is probably most worthy of a recall? Conventional wisdom suggets Shah is next in line for a bat at 6?
Interesting times
Complain about this comment
Interesting.
If the selectors bow down to the blogs and the forums, and drop ambrose, vaughan, flintoff and pieterson and bring in the preferred players (foster, key, shah, harmison, etc etc) and England get spanked again at Edgbaston, what will all of you say then??
As a neutral I hope that the changes are made as demanded here, and that South Africa obliterate England again next weekend!! It would be great to be able to read the reaction of all these 'cricket experts'...
Complain about this comment
What about Stephen Davies as wicketkeeper-batsman? He's young, has scored first class centuries, and is a tidy wicketkeeper. No 6 may be a touch high, but if Flintoff IS the new ITB, then he must bat there.
With regard to Vaughan, form is temporary, class is permanent. Sure you can't wait for ever for an innings of note, but he has at least scored a century this season in the Tests!
Cook is of more concern to me. Class batsmen don't continue to get out after they have made 50. I suspect the issue is concentration/over-confidence.
Depending on what the wicket at Edgbaston looks like, I would also be highly tempted to recall Simon Jones and drop Monty. He wasn't much more effective than KP's offspinners this match! Remember two of his three wickets were to slogging tailenders.
My team:
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
KP
Bell
Flintoff
Davies/Broad
Broad/Davies
Sidebottom
Anderson
Jones/Panesar
Complain about this comment
jjdoug, you have an interesting interpretation of the word 'neutral' considering you want south africa to obliterate' england at edgbaston.
Complain about this comment
Surley there is one batting all-rounder in England who can bat 6 and bowl with a certain amount of bite (not Colly's dobbers!!) so we can keep both Fred and Broad and have a batting line-up to be proud of???
Could Bopara be given a run in the side....??
Anyone else around......Rashid.....?????
Complain about this comment
keep broad, anderson. get rid off strauss, bell, the new guy. bring shah, bopara, sidebottom. then everthing is fine
think about collie. if he scores runs in county, then say bye bye to flintones(FLINTOFF). flintones has to score runs and take wickets.
kp needs control over what he does. he thinks he is like yuvraj singh. yuvraj is sooo much better! . ambrose needs help from keeping/batting>> SO WHY DONT STEWART HAVE A TALK WITH HIM!!!!!! every1 is saying bad things bout ambrose, but no1 is telling him how to improve the bad mistakes. vaughan needs serious help. and what is struass doing there??? GET RID OF HIM!!! HE IS NOOO GOOD. BRING OWAIS SHAH!!!
bell is tooo inconsistent enough to play proper cricket. bring bopara
england bowling is nothing without SIDEBOTTOM. ANDERSON/BROAD ARE AMAZING BOWLERS AND THEY BOTH OUTPLAYED ENGLAND BATSMAN IN 2ND TEST.
Complain about this comment
AndyPlowright Number 77 good comments. I agree the batsmen need to put runs on the board as a number one priority. I also feel we need to be realistic. England are not a "great team" Duncan Fletcher worked hard to find a combination of players to compete on a level and ultimately beat the Aussies in 05. He worked on a theory that only 90mph plus seamers could bowl out a top class batting line up with the support of an accuarte "slow bower" in Giles. Since Moores came in he has gone the other way and relies on old fashioned "county bowlers" with less success in my opinion. Siders never had a sniff under fletcher not to single him out as an individual but I really don't feel our selected test attack since moores came in is the most potent available at the moment. We have a lot of quality fast bowlers around the circuit:
Jones
Harmison
Tremlett
Hoggard
Anderson
Flintoff
Plunkett
Mahmood
Onions
Sidebottom
Broad
It really makes me wince when you see the keeper standing up to a test opening bowler which has been the case recently with Siders and Hoggy. I think they are good stock, support bowlers but won't bowl out top class batting line ups.
In this day age with the amount of test cricket being played maybe we should consider rotating the list above so they are all performing flat out when they play for their country?
We need a leg spinner too? Plowers are you available?
Complain about this comment
It's quite ridiculous to talk about dropping Anderson after the guts he's shown lately. If the lazy, short-sighted batsmen applied themselves with half the conviction Anderson's shown, we wouldn't have to be trying to catch the game up all the time. Yes, he's only taken 6 wickets in 3 innings, but only because there was not enough pressure applied at the other end. Nationality issues aside - Pattinson did not have the experience or nous to be able to pin the batsmen down, or the pace or variations to make them play. Same with Broad. Monty has looked miles out of sorts lately, so it was down to a (95% fit) Fred and Anderson to trudge manfully through the overs.
Broad has scored 2 runs less than Greame Smith in this series (and 12 more than Amla), and although we're well aware he's not there to bat, the fact is he is scoring runs consistently and looking confident while doing so. I think he deserves to be moved up to 6 and used as the 5th bowler. You can then have Prior at 7, or Fred at 7 and Read at 8 - then whichever 3 strike bowlers suit the conditions best.
But there's no point trying to stuff dozens of specialist batsmen in at the expense of wicket-keeping ability or bowling depth; all you're doing is building a safety net for the top order batsmen for when they fail. Those top 5 MUST fire more reliably, because it's those twerps who are losing us matches, not the bowlers.
Key and Shah must be getting close to their chance.
And Tresco - well. If only.
Complain about this comment
Andrew Strauss
Alli Cook
Michael Vaughan
Kevin Pietersen
Ian Bell
Stuart Broad
Andrew Flintoff
TimAmbrose
Jimmy anderson
Simon Jones
Monty Panesar
Thats the team that should have played, looks a bit light on the batting side, but i regard broad as an all rounder, as well as freddie. Simon jones over pattinson by a mile, late 80mph/early 90mph, with the ability to swing the ball both ways would have worked well in tandom with freddie when looking for a wicket. If them two were bowled correctly at the right time, no way SA would have had such an easy ride. Also, keep ambrose he's not a bad batsman, and not a bad keeper, give him time, i'm a firm believer in picking your best keeper, on his glovework and not on his batting. Arguement, there for Chris Read. I'm impressed even more every time i watch Stuart Broad, great temprement, not just his batting, but his bowling, he doesn't lose his rag when under pressure. Also i think the top four need tinkering, Alli Cook and Vaughan opening, KP at 3, Bell at 4.But we need to accomodate for strauss being dropped. if that happens. Maybe Vaughan should drop to 4 let kp come in at 3, cus it looks like vaughan doesn't like facing a fairly new ball against a decent,quick SA bowling setup.especially steyn, who seems to have his number. just a thought.
Complain about this comment
shah instead of strauss possibly, thats reagarding altering the batting lineup.
Complain about this comment
The real problem is the bowling, England have failed to get SA out in the last two innings for less than 500, this puts pressure on the batting and it's very unlikely going to win you a test. At worst it should have been 1-1.
I find all this talk about Broad as a number 6 batsmen ridculous- maybe against NZ but against the Indians in the winter or the Aussies next summer??
Dropping Vaughan as well, he's a world class batsmen that is going through a bad patch, plus the captain. You've already dropped Collngwood so who leads England in a tough series like this??, someone with no experience.
I don't get people critising Freddie either- he's just come back, he bowled 40 overs for 77 and scored 38. He is the English bowler any test side in the world doesn't want to face!
People critical of Monty would do well to remember that he took 4-74 in the first innings at Lords.
If you are going to make changes, bring Prior in and bat him at 6.
Sidebottom hopefully back and there has to be a strong case to include Jones (32 wkts at 16).
Give Broad a break- he's young, tired and ultimately he's been picked as a bowler ( 18 wkts at 47 in 08') not a batsmen.
Complain about this comment
1. Cook
2. Strauss
3. KP
4. Bell
5. Vaughan/Colly (Capt)
6. Broad
7. Flintoff
8. Ambrose/Prior (wkt)
9. Anderson
10. Sidebottom/Hoggard
11. S. Jones/Panesar
Last chance for Ambrose but you can?t expect him to be a number six so give him his ideal role in the team and see how he goes. Broad cannot be dropped as he?s the only one player consistently scoring! He?s not yet a strike bowler so play to his strengths and send him up the batting order. Vaughan too is in last chance territory and needs a knock to help himself out of a hole. Play him down the order as he cannot be relied on to get the innings at the top.
Bowling wise, Sids should be back but if unfit Hoggard is a reliable replacement ? not an 11 match anybody! We need five bowlers to get twenty Saf wickets so I would preferably have Sids, Freddy, Anderson, Broad (as a fifth pick bowler) and either S.Jones or Panesar depending on the pitch conditions. Personally, I reckon this is the time to give Monty a rest, reward Jimmy by keeping him in the team and bring Jonesey back in ? the only bowlers the Aussies fear as he consistently swings the ball both ways at pace. No one else can do that whose English or Welsh!
Complain about this comment
Maybe Rob Key in for Vaughan??
Arise Captain Key!!! That'd put a cat amongst the pigeons.
In all seriousness though, big Bob's got to be close to getting back into the picture.
Complain about this comment
amazing logic, mag1cman... england score as many runs in 2 full innings as south africa make in 1 and it's the bowlers' fault!!!
even though the bottom 5 scored 60% of the runs in the second innings!!!
unbelievable!!! with logic like that, you should be a selector, you'd fit in very well!!!
Complain about this comment
what england need is for the top 5 to show the dedication and commitment shown by jimmy anderson when they go out to bat.
they should sell their wickets a hell of a lot more dearly, and not just rely on the fact that they got runs last time.
you are only as good as your NEXT innings, forget the last one!!!
Complain about this comment
Hmm.
a lot of people have been commenting that Simon Jones should get back in. He has been bowling well it seems. The only issue for me is that he's playing in Division 2 of the County Championship rather than Division 1.
I know this is not as big a deal as it would be in other sports, but it might be a factor in the selectors minds.
Overall - I think Broad looks like a 'potential' number 8 for England (4th bowler who can bat), but he needs to develop a bit more on the bowling front yet.
Can Ian Bell keep wicket ....? (I kid ...) ;*)
Complain about this comment
Apart from anything, Ambrose has shown he's an absolute rabbit in ODIs - I sincerely hope they aren't going to keep him on against the South Africans for the ODI series.
They'll destroy him even quicker than the Kiwis did - might even dent his career ODI batting average of 2. Monty's ODI average is 5.2. Chris Martin's ODI average is 1.6.
Complain about this comment
Re Simon Jones
I believe he has failed a fitness test and will not be playing at Lords today for Worc- looks like he is still struggling for fitness I'm afraid to say
Complain about this comment
why have mr Vaughan who has not scored any meaningful runs this season for county or england and his use of the bowling assetts in the county game eg. Darren Pattinson a YORKSHIRE team mate ????????????? and why drop paul collingwood who has scored a few more run than mr Vaughan and why is Tim Ambrose place in danger or is it going to be knee jerck reaction to a lose that I could see happening at the naming of the team
Complain about this comment
I often wonder why the position of the captain is so secure. It's a similar position as with Mike Brearley all that time ago - Vaughan is a good captain but seems to be a bit past it with the bat these days. I can't imagine this will happen but I would be very tempted to give Pietersen the captaincy (which would be worth doing just to annoy the South Africans anyway) and bring in Rob Key or Owais Shah (personally I prefer Key) to bat at 4, with Bell at 3 and Pietersen at 5. Of course Bell is not beyond questioning himself given that apparently he has never scored a hundred in an innings when another England player has not also made a century, but we'll stick with him for now. I think Broad should bat at 6 because he looks like someone who would be better at crafting an innings than blasting with the tail. I also think if Sidebottom's not fit (and only if he's not fit) why not play to our strengths in better spinners and just give Adil Rashid a quick try, even if it's just for one match? That would give sufficient depth of batting to replace Ambrose with Chris Read, leaving Anderson and Panesar to comlplete the tail. That would give three quicks and two spinners, and let's face it, a leg spinner is always invaluable and might be able to make something of these flat tracks we seem to be presented with al the time. I hope this is a sufficiently well reasoned argument, but I can't ever see it becoming a reality. So for summary:
Andrew Strauss
Alistair Cook
Ian Bell
Rob Key
Kevin Pietersen
Stuart Broad
Andrew Flintoff
Adil Rashid
Chris Read
James Anderson
Monty Panesar
Complain about this comment
Hornetkiller-
Vaughan has scored more runs than Collingwood this season. It wouldn't be difficult to be honest!
Pattinson plays for Notts, not Yorks.
Complain about this comment
when did darren pattinson sign for yorkshire, then? I mean, i know he's only over here filling in between seasons in australia, but has he moved counties now as well?
Complain about this comment
If you actually look at the two first innings scores, removing Prince and De Villiers, SA were no better than England, so all they need to learn is how to get Prince aka The Rock out early in his innings before he settles.
For me Anderson, Jones and Hoggard is the way forward with the ball with Broad at 6, and probably Prior at 7. Flintoff didn't do much, except be a crowd pleaser, where winning is surely more pleasing.
With regards to batting, Vaughan has to go, and Strauss can take over as captain, until perhaps Pietersen proves himself in the one-dayers. Cook, even though he got 60, always looks more wobbly than a jelly at the crease. I think Bopara, who can also offer the Kallis style medium pace bowling, is in good nick and also Rob Key. If Key opened with Strauss then would provide a left-hander, right-hander combo which means the SA bowlers couldn't settle to a line or length.
Team for Edgbaston, and it may be a bit radical:
Strauss (c)
Key
Bell
Pietersen
Bopara
Broad
Prior
Anderson
Jones
Hoggard
Panesar
Complain about this comment
or is it another registration that yorkshire have forgotten about...?
Complain about this comment
I think Ambrose has run his course, batting at number 8 is not really an option unless his keeping is faultless, which it isn't. I would therefore like to see prior back, who's keeping is also not great, but looks a lot more comfortable with the bat and can easily bat at 6 or above.
Broad is looking excellent with the bat and with freddie back in the side we have two really good all rounders (Broad will become a really good all rounder).
I think the problem with the bowlers is we rely too heavily on swing. Before the last test every England player/coack/expert all mentioned "if the ball swings..." now i'm no expert but putting all our eggs in one basket, or maybe 2 if we get some wear on the pitch and monty can do his stuff!
I think we need a genuine pace bowler who can throw it in there quickly and disrupt the batsmen. There's a bloke at durham who has done this in the past for us!!!!!!!!!
On a final note having a 5, 6, 7 batsmen really means nothing if none of them are scoring, we seem scared to drop batsmen but bowlers seem to go in and out at will but batsmen can stay in the team on one good score forever it seems. Hoggard was dropped for having one bad game, how long was collingwood's last big knock? How many of the batting line up has changed since the ashes win of 2005? yet how many big scores have been posted since then? on the same note we have only 1 bowler, freddie, left in the team since then!!!!
All young english cricketers out there, take it from me, don't bother with the bowling learn to bat you'll be indespensible!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
Hornetkiller,
As some have pointed out Pattinson plays for Notts you wally and not Yorkshire.
Getting basic facts wrong is not the best tactic for a post....... Unless you are applying for work with the BBC obviously.
Complain about this comment
I think we need 5 bowlers because in neither of the 2 tests we have played, have England actually managed to get all 20 South African wickets. If you can't take 20 wickets, you can't win a match. Anything to bolster the bowling options/strength is critical. If we were defending a 1-0 lead, then maybe we could think about 4 specialist bowlers but certainly not now.
Broad should be promoted up the order. If anything, he is our best all rounder.
Complain about this comment
In my world this would be my team for the next test. With Colly as the 12th Man
Vaughan
Cook
Strauss
Bell
Pietersen
Prior
Broad
Flintoff
Swann
Anderson
Sidebottom
Might swap Vaughan back to 3 however. I think Swann is deserving of a chance as Monty hasn't shown much this series albeit on unfriendly pitches for spinners. I think Swann has a bit more variation and would trouble SA a bit more. I'd like to see Simon Jones back but not just yet. Not sure where I would drop him into this team though!
Complain about this comment
Fantasy England X1 for Edgbaston
Strauss
Cook
Key c
Pietersen
Bell
Prior +
Flintoff
Broad
Sidebottom
Anderson
Panesar
12th Man
Jones
Complain about this comment
My team:
Strauss
Cook
Ramprakash
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Flintoff
Mustard
Anderson
Sidebottom
Panesar
Complain about this comment
Why all the fuss about Flintoff - he stood there like a gladiator after taking only one wicket and then batted no better. He has not recovered from abject failure in the last Ashes series. Bring on a few more like Stuart Broad - a class act.
Complain about this comment
Interesting times for English cricket. Skipper Vaughan lacks confidence with the bat and is now overdue for a rest. Stuart Broad looks a great prospect, but his bowling lets him down at bit at the moment. He is only just 22 and is certain to improve. We have missed Sidebottom, Flintoff and Jones and it is time to get a 'keeper who can score some runs.
Here is my Edgbaston XI;
Strauss
Cook
Bell
Pietersen *
Shah
Prior +
Flintoff
Broad
Anderson
Sidebottom
Panesar
Sub : Jones
It bats, it bowls, it keeps wicket and it is a lot more balanced than the last team we put out.
Complain about this comment
I notice owais shah got out for 1 this morning, bowled by kabir ali. perhaps not the best nudge he could have given the selectors ahead of the next test...
but then again, i'm sure the selectors are out at this very minute scouring the counties for an unknown 33-year-old batter from the southern hemisphere knocking out a few runs in some second xi fixture somewhere, and are ready to propel him into the team for edgbaston!!!
Complain about this comment
india gonna batter sri lanka!!!!!! come on SACHIN
Complain about this comment
We looked poor the whole test, with only a few exceptions. Broad's innings was excellent and very mature. something someone like KP needs to take note of.
regarding the wicketkeeper situation, I'd like to see Steve Davies be given a chance. I think he's looked very good behind the stumps and with the bat for Worcestershire in the past couple of years. The only problem is, I guess, all the potential WK's for England are very much the same. Noone really stands out but I believe Davies could do well.
Simon Jones needs to be recalled as well. I do feel for Pattinson, he's been vindicated but I thought he did a semi decent job. He should never have been chosen but that's not his fault.
Complain about this comment
I've not read all the responses but many have criticised Pietersen but all he did was to hit 3 fantastic 4s (proper cricket shots) and then get out to a very good ball from Kallis whilst defending. I do wonder if some of those that have stated that Pietersen bats for himself (on yesterdays evidence) actually watched or listened to him bat. Probably not!
I know it won't happen but I would go for Foster instead of Ambrose. Tough decision as to whether to play 4 or 5 bowlers but when Collingwood has got no form and no other batsmen really putting their hand up, better a number 6 that can bowl or keep wicket rather than one that can do neither (or bat!).
Complain about this comment
How can you drop Broad?
I would think the selectors will stay loyal to Ambrose and have him bat below Fred and Broad.
Broad looks a class batsman.
And he had pace as well - fastest delivery was 88mph.
Clearly he was tired from back to back tests.
They should have kept Collingwood and brought in Harmy for Panesar, thus having Broad, Jimmy, Fred and Harmy as pace bowlers with Collingwood providing a bit of seam.
Anyway - what chance five pace bowlers at Edgbaston with Harmy and Sidebottom back?
Is Panesar going to get wickets at Edgbaston?
It is not really a spinner's wicket is it?
Complain about this comment
When choosing whether to select four or five bowlers, a number of factors come in to play. Mainly how good your bowlers are at bowling and batting.
The better they are at bowling, the less of them you need. The better they are at batting the more of them you can afford.
For example When Australia had McGrath and Warne, they could go in with only four bowlers, but we do not have anyone of that quality as bowlers. What we do have is bowlers that can hold a bat, Broad and Flintoff. Anderson is also an above average number 9.
Another factor is the use which can be made of your fifth bowler. The greater the variety the more use a fifth bowler. Fourth seamers have often be little used. Swan would provide more variety and also bolster the batting standard of the bowling.
If the pitch looks like takes spin
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Prior
Broad
Flintoff
Swann
Anderson
Panesar
If not then Harmison for Swan,
Complain about this comment
When it comes to the wicket keeper position, Chris Read has to get a decent run in the side - for two reasons:
1) the question over whether or not the keeper is good enough on the grounds of keeping wicket will be banished. How embarassing is the endless discussion over the catching ability of the England wicketkeeper. This guy should be the best catcher in the country, and Read is probably the best (English) keeper in the country.
2) another poster mentioned something about grafters needed in the side, and I agree. Read doesn't have that sickening ego that soils most of the England team, and certainly won't be expected to hit the opposition out of the ground. Yet he isn't a bad batter, has as decent enough country average, and I for one would rather him come in at 7 than Prior. Gilchrist is/was one of the greatest players ever for his ability to attack the bowlers in all circumstances. Gilly wannabes, like Prior or Ambrose (you might also add Bell to that) can only do it when the team is already on top, and that ability is actually not that useful when it comes to crunch matches.
Complain about this comment
I've just read that someone thinks Bopara can offer the same sort of bowling that Kallis offers for the SAs!
That's like saying, "Bring back Peter Such as he offers the same sort of batting as Ashwell Prince".
I'll continue this post when I stop laughing...
Complain about this comment
i think there are a number of thingds need taking into consideration
broad's job in the team is a bowler. he has under performed in this role. if he is to be selected primerily as a batsman who bowls then other options in that role need to be considered.
simon jones, anderson and sidebottom are all similar bowlers. simon jones has a little extra up his sleeve, anderson is the strongest batter and fielder so if all 3 dont fit in the side it is sidebottom that should miss out
Panesar is englands best spinner by a country mile but not every pitch requires spin as an option
In terms of a captain vaughen is the best man for the job, his batting will surely return at some point
Cook
Vaughen/Strauss
Bell/Vaughen
Pieterson
Shah/Bell
Collingwood/Shah
Flintoff
Read
Anderson
Jones
Panesar/Sidebottom
if 6 bastmen it strauss or collingwood, maybe key but shah is a must.
sidebottom or panesar depending if spin required.
failing that
Cook
Vaughen
Bell
Pieterson
Shah
Flintoff
Read
Broad/Anderson
Anderson/Sidebottom
Jones
Panesar
5 batsmen, Broad or Sidebottom to play. not sure if anderson is an 8 in broads absence
Complain about this comment
To a previous poster - Broad can very easily be dropped. Hes in the side for his bowling, and lets face it, Pattinson bowled better than he did. Now that Flintoff is back, and bowling almost at his best, I think its a fair switch.
Complain about this comment
I think the idea that we drop Ambrose and pick someone else to keep wicket, and then the balance of this team will be much better is ridiculous.
Prior did enough to show in his test career that he had to be dropped as keeper, not because he might drop a catch in a match but because he looked totally incompetent as a keeper right down to the basics of his stance. You might as well forget about picking Monty if you pick him.
As for Read and Foster, they are both very good keepers, but Ambrose is looking fine behind the stumps and I don't see any need for change on that basis. Similarly he's no great batsman, but if he can average 25-30, and he looks like he could, i think that neither Read nor Foster have ever realistically looked like doing any better than that.
Whole sale changes in a team are never a good idea, and it is better we make changes in other areas of this England team, most importantly the attack.
Complain about this comment
An excellent article as usual Graham.
I think England made a massive mistake in dropping Collingwood and not playing either Tremlett or Hoggard instead of Pattinson.
However what worries me most is the approach of the English batsman.
They need to focus on building partnerships and staying at the crease as opposed to scoring freely with wild shots. This is a 5-day game after all.
The mind set of "playing my natural game" is just an excuse for not having the patience and wisdom (or talent in some cases) to play to the situation.
I think Vaughn should be relinquished of the captaincy.
Cook must be made captain with Collingwood or Strauss as vice-captain.
Complain about this comment
I would go with
Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
KP
Freddie
Prior/Foster
Broad
Swann
S Jones
Anderson
Siders
Complain about this comment
3rd test XI will be:
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
KP
Bell
Flintoff
Ambrose
Broad
Anderson
Sidebottom
Panesar
This team gives the best balance of batting and bowling. You could swap ambrose and flintoff around but fred is a big time player so i would stick him in at six. I personally would like to see prior back in the side
Complain about this comment
Well It didn't take much for the Readites and the Fosterers to rally behind their failing champions again, did it!
Oh Outlawsman (not a Notts fan by any chance), one thing you Readites convienently forget is that the 'rabbit' has been tried and retried and retried in the past, failing consistantly with the bat, when the modern day at international level, requires your No.7 to contribute. Yes 'catches win matches', but a Gilchrist demonstrated, runs win them, more often.
Secondly, I'd be interested to know how you measure how much better he is as a keeper, because personally, although I agree that his keeping is more pleasing on the eye, I think its a myth that he is so, so much better than others that have keep for England in recent times or that his presence would have had any real effect on the outcome of any games he's not played in. The inference that he would, is being crass.
Oh and one last thing, the fact that he had a reasonable average in one series, does not detract from the many failures before and after, so really that point is a bit mute.
As for Foster, very much the same, ignore what Gooch says, he's just bigging-up his Essex chum, and a couple of swallows each summer from Foster, don't make it a Test Match summer for him. Tried, tested and like Read, failed.
Like the look of Davies, Mustard, Prior and Ambrose, and the selectors should not look elsewhere at this time.
Complain about this comment
In order to win the next two tests we need to take 40 wickets, as good as Broad has been with the bat i dont think his bowling has been good enough to take the wickets needed and build the pressure on SA and I think Pattinson getting dropped is inevitable. Siders return is a certainty, so then the replacement for broad is the question, and i think we should go for Jones he is top of the averages and although his fitness does have some question marks, his bowling ability has none!
I feel we should also bring foster in for Ambrose, he has been average behind the stumps and poor with the bat. With regards to the batsmen they just need to show some application, as SA have done and i think there is enough quality in the top 5 to post two good scores.
Complain about this comment
cook
bell
shah
kp
strauss (c)
collingwood (w)
broad
flintoff
sidebottom
anderson
panesar
why not eh?!?!
Complain about this comment
I go along entirely with the four bowler theory suggested by Goochie, our batting has always been our weakness through the years with the seam bowling department at home tests being our strength. Broads heroics with the bat are confusing selection; he is a great prospect but his bowling looks a long way off being a "five for" type match winner and although Anderson in comparison is inconsistent he can put in the odd damaging spell, (Trent Bridge this June for example). No6 should primarily be a batsman but somebody who can give you a few overs if you're staring at 170-1 mid afternoon. Therefore my team for Edgbaston would be:
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
KP
Bell
Bopara
Fred
Prior
Sidebottom
Anderson
Monty
The Pattinson selection at Leeds will forever remain a joke (not his fault but Geoff Millers for selecting mediocraty).
Vaughans remarks - "We got ourselves in a half-decent position, 110 for three, and then played like millionaires in the afternoon" - would appear to be pointing a finger at KP; well scores some runs yourself Vaughny !
Complain about this comment
My pick,
Cook
Strauss
Vaughn
KP
Bell
Shah/ Collingwood/ Broad
Prior/ Mustard/ Snell
Flintoff
Anderson
Jones
Panesar
Regarding Harmison, he is a class but, all too often inconsistent bowler, and these days he lacks the mental strength to cut it at Test level. A lot of talk on here has discussed how he can bring you something extra on flat wickets because of his pace, but over the last few years as soon as he feels there is no assistance from the wicket he has given up and been tonked around the ground. Also given his comments on his last tour he obviously doesn't want to play abroad again so he would hardly be a long term solution.
Personally I'd opt for Simon Jones as he's been getting a decent number of wickets and looks to be fully fit. He's also a very clever and still pretty quick bowler with a proven track record (albeit between bouts of injury.)
I'd be tempted (though not convinced) to give broad another go, but as an all rounder batting at 6 rather than just a bowler. I'd like to see how he fairs around that level. His technique looks pretty decent so it would be an interesting experiment. If not broad, then Shah or Collingwood, who's a bit out of sorts but creates a nice balance in the batting.
In terms of the wicket keeping, Read won't offer a noticable improvement over Ambrose. With a flimsy batting line up, are we better just picking a competent wicki who can bat like prior/ mustard or even Snell who's got his chance this year with Gloucestershire and has been knocking it around a bit (though I haven't seen much of his keeping)
Our batting was poor in the last test and has looked a little fragile over the summer, but I'm not sure if there is anyone at the moment in the county scene who looks like an obvious candidate to step up to test level, who we haven't tried already.
anyway that's my two pence
Complain about this comment
Afternoon all,
Having sat through 5 days of watching England trying in vain to take 20 wickets in the last 2 test matches and a rather abridged batting performance save the lower order, I would suggest the following team:
Cook (clings on because of his 60)
Anderson (copes well with a new(ish) ball and plays the opening bowlers well)
Flintoff (reads the situation well and adjusts, can also offer a couple of useful overs)
Broad (consistently England's best batsman - wouldn't recommend bowling him though)
Monty (reads the situation well and is improving batsman, also offers a good option of being able to bowl the odd off break)
Ambrose (good wk and hangs around a bit)
Sidebottom (must be back soon?)
Jones (bowling well in county cricket)
Pieterson (Offers good turn on the ball, and like all entertaining tail enders will try and give the ball some, regardless of the situation)
Harmison (Offers something more than innocuous inoffensive medium fast non swinging nonsense)
Just waiting for the call to join the selectors (can't bear another test match watching that...)
Complain about this comment
my team would be:-
Cook, Strauss, Vaughan, Pietersen, Prior, Flintoff, Sidebottom, ( 2 from Mahmood or Andersen or Hoggard or Jones I can 't decdie but would probably pick Mahmood and Anderson), Harmison and Panesar.
I feel the criticism of Vaughan is getting a bit excessive - I remember Mark Taylor in 1997 suffering a worse run of scores and being under similar pressure and then getting a century in the first ashes test. I think he will come good. The one thing about Vaughan's captaincy is that he makes players relax and actually look like they are enjoying playing the game. This was obviously most evident in 2005 but it is still evident today.
The bowling attack looks one dimesional, lacking penetration on that basis I think it would be good to see sajid mahmood and Harmison selected both bowling quickly both taking wickets in CC1 (16@20 and 40@26) I think.
Complain about this comment
Looking relaxed is one thing...
lying down and letting the south africans walk all over you is something else!!! the batters have to show some grit, application and concentration!!!
Complain about this comment
My team for 3rd test match Would be:
Cook
Vaughn (C)
Bell
KP
Shah
Prior +
Flintoff
Broad
Swann
Anderson
Sidebottom
I believe it is time to give Shah a chance he has performed very well in the 0DI's, Strauss is the unlucky one to depart but to be honest u could get rid of any of the top 5.
As for the wicket-keeping position, i am afraid its time for Ambrose to have a break he has not been performing to test match level. For me its a easy decision to bring in Prior who is the leading first division championship run scorer and just two day's ago hit a brilliant 137 in a pro 40 game against a good somrset side.
I would also give Swann a game ahead of Monty, Monty is two 1 paced for me and adding swann will improve the batting, As far as batting Broad at six goes, i am not a fan of that at all i think if we keeop him at 7 or 8 he will keep geting the runs.
Complain about this comment
With respect to Pieterson, the guys a muppet. Talented? yes. Top Class? Yes.
But you do not go out parading shots all round the park when you need to bat for 6 sessions? This is not 20/20, this is a 5 day test match, and thus need to be batted in accordance. We failed because certain individuals did not bat sensibly, or bat to what was required.
We were in the same boat as S. Africa in the first test and they batted slowly, and only hit what needed to be hit, it was an exercise and a lesson in batting which we simply failed to observe.
I don't blame pieterson personally, we collectively failed as a team, and everyone needs to take the responsibility for that.
But we cannot have players running in to a test match scoring 13 off 5 balls, when the position of the game requires containment.
All the 'experts' keep saying that it is pietersons way of batting, that he should implicitly be allowed to play his way, just like freddie.
This is total nonsense.
He's (and the rest too) are paid to do a job, that 'job' yesterday was to bat for 5-6 sessions. He didnt and so didn't some of the others, if he is that great, he should find it perfectly straightforward to stop hitting everything to the boundary, dig in, and just keep the scorecard ticking along, he's a batsman, hes pid to do that, and thats precisely what he should have done, lots of players were 'wafting' at shots. They should have been left well alone.
I refer to the way in which the S. Africans batted, outside off stump = leave, not everything must be smashed to the boundary mentality.
We beat ourselves yet again. We will lose 3-0 in this series if we are not careful.
Additionally, the S. Africans are the champions elect. They will be considered to be the best after playing in the series home and away to the Aussies.
Complain about this comment
Why does it seem that Pietersen is unassailable? Despite consistently poor batting performances, from an arrogant and selfish batter who can perform if his massive ego doesn't get in the way - which it often does, no-one seems to consider dropping him. In the situation just experienced, the last thing England needed was for him to come in and throw his wicket away.
The South Africans have him weighed up. Give him an inch of rope and sure enough he'll hang himself sooner rather than later. The man's a joke in this form and the sooner he's dropped, the sooner he will realise that he has to apply himself and play himself in before becoming a stroke player. Blasting off from the start shows his disregard for the opposition's attack which is recognised to be among the best in the world at present.
I'd recommend dropping him from the remaining tests this summer and perhaps bring him into the ODIs. There are other batters out there who will apply themselves. Collingwood can do that and is a better prospect with the ball. There's also Shah who has shown that he can apply himself and does not consider himself better than the rest and treat the opposition with the disdain Pietersen shows.
Ambrose is a fine keeper and whist his batting form can be a bit erratic, it's vital that the keeper takes catches which is what let Prior down and resulted in his being dropped. Prior also has a habit of letting his mouth run away with him. His batting form also suffered which further made his dropped catches more significant.
Complain about this comment
How on earth can people suggest dropping Pietersen and saying he is in bad form, two tons in his last four innings suggest he may not be playing as badly as a rather foolish minority think!
Complain about this comment
When we have back-to-back tests and our bowlers are exposed to a lot of time in the field then we need to rest bowlers and play the next bowlers in line who are suited to the pitch conditions. Even Monty would need to be rested as the South African batsmen seem to be getting used o him. Trying an off-spinner would pose different problems for the South African left-handers to bat against. We as the home side have the advantage of a wider choice allowing our bowlers to be selected for the conditions but we don't seem to take advantage of this.
Complain about this comment
My team for the next test
Strauss
Cook
Bell
KP
Shah
Broad
Fred
Foster/prior
Anderson
Jones
Panesar
ambrose has been poor with the bat and only average with the gloves
Complain about this comment
Well, as one of the foolish minority, I'd rather have a man who treats his wicket, his team mates and the game itself with respect. With a long defensive innings needed, he went 4, 4... and I knew he'd make a low score. A couple of balls later he threws his wicket away as so many times before.
The so called best batsman in the world is so seldom the best batsman in the team. There's more to being a great sportsman than having raw tallent. You need commitment, guts and determination.
Averages don't tell the whole story. Human beings have an average of about 1.98 legs. A batsman scores 60, 55,65,60 in two test matches, and another one scores 0, 237, 1, 2. Which would you prefer in your team? They each score an average of 60.
As for bowlers, it's not so much how many as how good. If we'd had seven bowlers who all lacked penetration we would have been no better off.
Full marks to Broad, who dug in with the bat. If only he'd had Pietersen's flair - or of course Pietersen had had Broad's temperament.
I think Pietersen needs to be shown that his selection is not automatic.
Complain about this comment
Staurt Broad's innings yesterday was a thing of beauty, and it is not as if this is a one off.
It would have been mighty interesting if he had been sent in as night watchman instead of Jimmy Anderson, to see how he fared up the order. He looks totally restricted at 8 to me, and doomed to run out of partners before he fulfills his potential.
Someone should look him in the eye, and ask whether he should think about being a specialist batsman (No 6) who bowls a bit. If, as seems the case, he is dead set on being a test bowler, then he appears to be the sort who would respond to someone (Otis Gibson) spending a lot of time to bring him on.
Let's not forget that he was our best bowler in the one day series against New Zealand, just 2 matches ago! In that series he seemed way too classy to slog like a one day player down the order.
What a delicious problem!
Let's hope England "manage" him properly, and don't squidge that talent.
Complain about this comment
I think we'd be hard pushed finding a replacement for KP. And dropping him would be a tad harsh even if he does seem arrogant to a lot of people, but then again most of the best players in the world are arrogant...Ponting maybe?
How come Mustard is not even in the thoughts of the selectors? One of the best keepers in the country, especially standing up to the seamers and would make the batting line up look at lot better with him coming in at 7.
Complain about this comment
I think England need to look at the bowling unit closely. Broad has batted excellently but at test level cannot justify selection on his bowling. Maybe move to 6 but england need to have a long look at the batting line up and if he is moved to 6 can't be overly critisized if he fails, he is still very young.
KP cannot be dropped but the way he came out on monday was stupid it was not a time to hit shots straight away it was about saving the match I do wonder how an attitude like that affects team spirit.
Anderson has done well over recent times and Flintoff doesn't give mush away. England need a Steyn or a Lee to complete their bowling unit I hope Jones gets another chance and Vaughn needs a big score.
Complain about this comment
Arrogance from KP would be tolerable if it were coupled with consistent good performances. What we have at the moment is arrogance coupled with the occasional good performance to remind us how good he could be.
Complain about this comment
Agreed, Pietersen has the raw talent but the way he uses it is questionable which therefore makes his temperament questionable also. Foolish minority - wake up and smell the grass you 'KP' nuts!
Complain about this comment
That last sentence should have read " Foolish minority? - wake up and smell the grass you 'KP' nuts! "
Complain about this comment
It annoys me when people comment on vaughan and say have people forgotten the ashes! Of course not but times change and he is in a period of decline his captaincy is impatient his field placings are questionable(prince scored stacks between extra cover and cover and we didnt fill the hole) his fielding is on a par with monty and when england finally do get a wicket he always seems to give the bowler a little slap what a stupid celebration-no wonder they dont want to take wickets for fear of assault(tongue in cheek of course) and oh yes his batting or total lack of it the guy cant play anymore he needs to be replaced with collingwood who when given responsibility raises his game to the next level i think the guy is quality!
Also im fed up of people asking for players like mahmood, bopara plunkett harmison to come back in the side they should be banished along with vaughan to the land of no return!
Complain about this comment
MY line up would be
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
KP
Bell
Prior/Foster
Flintoff
Broad
Sidy
Monty
Anderson
The only issue is wether England are looking for a specialist keeper(foster) or a batsmen(prior)
Complain about this comment
i think that read has had his chance.
he dropped some clangers and didnt score runs.
Nic Pothas at Hampshire is the best choice he is 2nd best batsman (after Prior) and is a tidy keeper.
hoggard should be playing as should jones, jones is the best bowler we have and can hold a bat. which is more than we can say for pattinson and monty.
you cant broad and flintoff together. neither of them take enough wickets and flintoff isnt good enough with the bat.
with broad he may be scoring runs but he isnt there for that you may as well play someone like bopara who will score more runs and will also probably take as many wickets if he is used well.
vaughns form is worrying but maybe a re-ordering of englands top is needed. perhaps pietersen at 3 vaughn opening with strauss 5 and bell 4. cook is batting well at the start and deserves his place.
monty should stay for edgebaston cos the wicket gives as the test moves on but maybe consider dropping him for swann or perhaps rashid as they both offer with the bat, perhaps rashid is too young but swanny is certainly good enough.
i think maintain the same 11 but drop pattinson for jones for edgebastona and see how things work. SA are simply better than us and we have to realise we are only looking so poor because they are alot better than us.
Complain about this comment
On the keeper debate; for me you have to go with the best keeper and if he can get you a few runs then great, but there isn't many "Batsmen" keepers in the country that are going to make the run deficate of dropping a guy that goes on and makes a ton. I think to say that Chris Read dropped some 'clangers' is pretty harsh, he done very little wrong in his time behind the sticks, granted he didn't make a lot of runs but he did play against some of the best opposition, where as the Ambrose/Priors have made their runs against weaker test nations such as the West Indies and New Zealand.
I can't see the selectors bringing Read back and for the moment it is probably the right thing to stick with Ambrose, because he doesn't really do a lot wrong with the gloves. Standing back to the seamers he appears to have taken all of the catches that have come his way. Standing up to Monty is where I worry slightly, especially on a turning pitch, but I'm sure he'll get better as he keeps to him more.
You may see the selectors go for the approach that was taken by New Zealand with Brendon McCullum, because he was nothing special when he first started, but they stuck with him and he is now one of the best batsmen keepers in the world.
Complain about this comment
Put Broad to open. Drop Vaughan. I suppose we're stuck with Tiny Tim are we?
Complain about this comment
I don't know how he did it, but Sound the Bugle is spot on when he suggests that I support the Outlaws. I have done for many years. This does not make me wrong or a bad person.
No-one seriously can claim that Chris Read was a failure in terms of keeping wicket when he played for England. He didn't drop catches, nor miss stumpings; byes were a rarity. However, he didn't often show much form with the bat, although this aspect was improving, especially under Strauss as captain.
On the other hand, the so-called batsmen- wicketkeepers have not proved their case. They have been under so much pressure because their wicketkeeping inadequacies ate into their batting performances, which declined as their confidence declined. They were dropped because they failed to deliver in the allrounder role that everyone has been looking for, since Gilchrist. We have no Gilchrist.
But why is it the wicketkeeper who has to be the allrounder? Why is it that no-one says to, say, Ryan Sidebottom, "you're a great bowler but you're dropped because you don't score enough runs?" As it is, the advent of Broad and the return of Flintoff give the selectors the chance to play the best pure wicketkeeper at 8, or even 9. For me, that would mean Read. Others would plump for Foster. You could even persevere with Ambrose, who seems fairly competent. Critics like Bob Willis state the case simply: it's up to the batsmen to bat and the bowlers to bowl .... and keepers to keep. He's a Read man, like Rod Marsh and Michael Holding.
....Now that Bruce French, he could keep.
Complain about this comment
Outlawsman, in Bob Willis's day it was as simple as the batsman to bat, the bowlers to bowl and the keepers to keep. However in 21st century cricket with the likes of Adam Gilchrist, Brendon McCullum, Kumar Sangakkara, Mahendra Singh Dhoni and to an extent Mark Boucher keepers have to be able to bat. If they can then with all-rounders with the likes of Broad (and maybe Flintoff), a team can bat as far as 8 or even 9.
With that in mind surely Prior or even Mustard and as many have suggested Davies are the ones to be considered.
Complain about this comment
The bowlers - whoever was picked had nothing to bowl at. The batsmen failed miserably - particular the captain. Now he is blaming the bowling selection which he was part of.
Why does Vaughan remain 'fireproof' - his batting is awful, leadership poor and he admits selection (his) was 'confused' In any other sport he would be gone!
I expect Pattinson will be made to take all the flak, for which the other failures will no doubt be very grateful.
Complain about this comment
Quite agree, broquetman.
Vaughan's comments after the game were eye-opening, when he talked about the middle order needing to improve 'their' performances. He presumably doesn't consider himself part of the middle order!!!
It is ludicrous to blame the bowlers for failing to take 20 wickets when the batsmen only managed (just) to score as many runs in 2 complete innings as the South Africans made in 1!!!
Complain about this comment
i agree goochie
i thin four bowlers is the answer aslong as they are the right 4,
i was reading the paper yesterday n they said that stuart broads place for the next test was dodgy, but after his batting performance in the second innings i will e shocked if he is dropped from the side, i think your right about KP, he doesnt bat the way he does just to live up to his reputation, he bats that way because thats how he knows to bat, he bats best this way so y change it,
he played a couple of excellent shots in his short innings, but was done by a very good ball from kallis,
freddie is a great asset to have back to the side but just because he is availabale again i dnt think the selectors should just be automatically accomadating him in the side, they change the whole format of the side this test to accomadate freddy, i think if hes going to play he should fit into there plans and there way of playing, wich was excellent in the first test,
i just thin they need to watch what they do for the next test but i think the answer is 4 bowlers,
good luck lads
Complain about this comment
I think the selectors are being unjustly criticised. Only a couple of weeks ago I said to my wife:
"Darling, why don't they give that Pattinson chappie a try?"
She replied:
"Probably because he's had very limited experience and is already nearly 30, speaks with an Aussie accent, and isn't particularly good. Now would you like a nice cup of tea and a piece of cake?"
But they DID give him a try, and he was clearly a relative failure. Nevertheless I feel it is moot whether they were right, or my wife. Give him one more go, I say.
Complain about this comment
Anyone thinking of dropping Broad must be joking!! The guy has again showed what he can do with the bat and his bowling, albeit not the most penetrative as yet, is improving with every game he plays. There was obvious tiredness in Broad and Anderson after the first test and hopefully they will both be back fighting fit for the third test.
Dropping Collingwood was obviously a mistake and it would not surprise me if he is recalled for the third test, even though Shah, Bopara and co will be left disappointed. England have to play 6 batsmen at all times, with two of them able to contribute with the ball to make a fifth bowler a la Australia. South Africa are very lucky to have someone like Kallis, but most teams make do with 4 bowlers and rely on the likes of Symonds, Clarke, Sehwag, Jayasuriya and so on. Pieterson needs to be one of those and i guess either Collingwood or Bopara would be favourite for the other role.
The keeper situation will just not go away at the moment. The mentality is all wrong, far too much pressure for county players to handle, and thats unfortunately all we have in that position. We could try Read, Foster, Prior or Mustard instead of Ambrose, but will any of them do so much better than their last chance(s)??
So my bet for the team for the next test reads:
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pieterson
Bell
Collingwood
Flintoff
Ambrose
Broad
Sidebottom
Anderson
(Panesar if there is spin/Sidebottom unfit)
Runs and pressure win matches, wickets will fall if pressure is applied with big scores and consistent bowling of line and length and swing. At least if we score big runs we cant lose, hopefully!!
Any takers...??
Complain about this comment
Agreed with some of this but I'm firmly in the bowlers win matches camp. Sorry Goochy - but some sides can do it with 4 bowlers but not us. Over the years we have a terrible injury record with bowlers breaking down - and our best results (against decent opponents) have come with 5 bowlers.
One option nobody's mentioned as yet is to go Flintoff, Broad, Ambrose at 6,7,8 or even Broad, Flintoff, Ambrose.
The main problem is, of course, that Broad might be batting very well but he's picked to bowl - and he's not getting any wickets so he has to be dropped in my opinion.
I think you're spot on not attaching any blame to KP. In KP's mind, runs were his mantra - not batting time and if you're as good as him - that is definitely the way to go. I didn't think the shot he got out to was that bat either - the fact that he'd hit 3 fours off his previous 4 balls didn't determine the shot he got out to - just a good ball.
Complain about this comment
I think the criticism Darren Pattinson has recieved over his selection and performance has been very unfair. The reason England lost was because all 11 players didnt play well enough. Simple as. The talk from Vaughan and the media in blaming the selection for the defeat is totally pathetic. Once again all of Englands batsmen has shown they are not capable of getting their heads down and sticking around when the going gets tough. We have a useless keeper and bowlers who cant get good batsmen out. Look at the first test for a good example. If anyone is going to get dropped it should be Vaughan or Broad after yet another failure with the bat and ball respectively - the reason they are in the team.
Complain about this comment
I?m not so sure that the four bowler policy served them so well at Lord?s ? pitch aside, England?s best bowlers should still be able to better 3 wickets in 167 overs. Moreover, we did well with 5 bowlers winning against Australia in 2005 and South Africa themselves in 2003.
As well as Broad is batting, he is there principally for wickets and accountable for an average of 96 runs and 26 overs between only 3 of them so far this series. Furthermore there was less pressure and lower intensity bowling at him during his last innings, but a good number 8 knock nevertheless. Monty?s lucky he?s the spinner because 4 tail-end wickets amongst his 7 this series in the course of 116 overs, isn?t that chipper either.
The surprise selection seemed to cheapen the selectors? apparent drive for consistency in the selection making process, as surely this extends to the squad and leads to more foreseeable decision making. It appeared to unbalance and unnerve the team and undo the benefits the prior consistency had developed.
So now we move on and England have to win to at least draw the series through scoring hundreds of runs and taking 20 wickets quicker than the South Africans do. So I think we need the most potent batsmen and bowlers for the job ? we could do with a batsman getting a 100 and a bowler getting a 5 for, in every innings.
As an aside Vaughan is the captain and Cook and Strauss openers so Pietersen should move to number 3 to allow Vaughan more time to disentangle his brain between innings. England?s wicketkeepers all appear to be much of a muchness and all just as prone to good and bad moments with bat and gloves. But as Matt Prior?s batting average at test (40) and county (39) is higher than Ambrose?s (27 and 35), I?d plump for Prior by the thinnest of margins.
My selection would therefore be 1:Strauss 2:Cook 3:Pietersen 4:Vaughan 5:Bell 6:Prior 7:Flintoff 8:Anderson 9:Sidebottom 10:Harmison 11:Panesar.
Complain about this comment
The team for edgebaston should be like this:-
Trescothick(VC)
Strauss
Cook
Pieterson(C)
Bell
Shah
Mustard(WK)
Sidebottom
Anderson
Harmison
Panesar
Flintoff(12th man)
I think that, Mustard has to replace Ambrose, because he scored a lot of runs in the last season and was unnecessarily dropped after the ODI series in NZL. He is doing really well with the gloves in domestic cricket and also continuing to score runs with the bat.
Trescothick is in great form. If he is to be brought back, then it is the ideal time.
Vaughan, Collingwood both are going through an ordinary time. Their batting avarages are below of 30 this year. Perhaps, England can take a chance with Shah at no.6.
Harmison is the highest wicket taker in county champ, div1, this year. If still he is not brought back, then it will be a big question on the efficiency oif the selectors.
The last series against NZL has gone well. This series against the world's 2nd best test playing nation has not been enjoyable so far. So, the only thing the englishmen can do, is to work hard and waiting for better things to happen. The entire process of upgrading a side can not be completed within few months. Team will loose, team will win, but finding out talented individuals and coaching them to be better international cricketers, is a slow process.
Complain about this comment
Vaughan is the captain who won the Ashes, and has won more matches than he has lost. However badly he bats, people always say, "But he's a great captain." His position is almost unassailable.
But his batting is on the decline, and he seems to be in the closing stages of his career.
Impossible to sack him, but convenient if he resigns.
A bizarre and controversial selection of Pattinson over several of Vaughan's preferred options. The match is lost (which would probably have happened anyway) and Vaughan lets it be known that annoyed by the selection.
A meeting is called to clear the air.
Are we watching a cynical end game to get Vaughan to step down?
Complain about this comment
A LAST WORD ON WHO SOULD KEEP WICKET.FOR ME IT SOULD BE THE BEST GLOVEMAN.REASON PLAY A SECOND RATE KEEPER AND JUST SUPPOSE HE DROPS A CATCH THAT COST THE TEAM 150 RUNS.THAT MEANS HE AS THEN GOT TO GET 150 BE4 HE STARTS TO GIVE ANYTHING TO THE TEAM SCORE.THATS WHY I SAY PLAY THE BEST GLOVEMAN
Complain about this comment
On the whole I believe the selections have been poor this summer. We've had an unchanged side for six matches with no apparent justification.
This unchanged side had to struggle to beat a weakened NZ. It looked to everyone that this team could've been improved and when they do eventually change it they get it so hopelessly wrong. Why even risk selecting a player nearly 30 who's only played 11 or so first class matches when you have experienced in-form bowlers to pick from.
I've no confidence in our selectors and I have already given up hope in England regaining the Ashes.
I agree with Nottsoldtimer, pick your best wicketkeeper - he can win you matches with the gloves not with the bat. Same for the bowlers - ignore their batting averages- give your best bowlers the ball and they can win you matches.
Complain about this comment
The short-sightedness of some posting on here is absolutely mind boggling. Andrew Strauss has been our highest run scorer for the last two series since he came back, it'd be ridiculous to even contemplate dropping him. Everyone can see that Cook is the future as well, so it would be nonsensical to drop either opener.
Pietersen and Bell will not be dropped, regardless of their performances or lack of in the last test. The only thing keeping Vaughan in the team is the fact that he's got a reputation as a very good captain, though the very fact that England were in the field for two whole days suggests that this may no longer be the case. I say its time for Vaughan to do what he made Strauss do last year and head back to county cricket to re-establish himself as someone capable of scoring runs.
After all the hype surrounding Flintoff's return, there is no chance of him being dropped after only one test, where he was one of our better bowlers and wasn't that bad with the bat minus one dodgy shot; the last thing his confidence needs is to be dropped after only one test, on his day he's still one of the best in the world.
It'd be a terrible decision to drop Broad also. We finally, finally get a bowler who can hold a bat and all of a sudden the knives are out. Despite what is said on here he is a good bowler and more than deserving of his place in the side. The same can be said for Jimmy Anderson, whose batting has improved tenfold and still looks the likeliest to take a wicket.
If Sidebottom's fit, then he will be in for Pattinson, no doubt. Simon Jones isn't ready yet and the worst thing that we could do is rush him back and set back his recovery even further. He should just concentrate on being ready for the Ashes, and then unleash him. Hoggard's finished as an international bowler - if his own county teammate is picking a roofer with 12 first class matches to his name ahead of him then he surely must see that Hoggy's done. I wouldn't trust Harmison ever again in an England jersey after the so-called performances he put in during his last year or so in the side. If any of the quickies that have been used in recent years are deserving of a call-up then it should be Saj Mahmood, who is bowling very fast and taking wickets. His problem was always that he was expensive, though this season that has not been the case.
England as a team needs a spinner, and there is none better than Monty Panesar. He plays, no matter what.
The final issue therefore is the wicketkeeper. Tim Ambrose is just not good enough for this, either with bat or glove. Matt Prior's shown himself to be unreliable over a period of time, and Chris Read's ICL connection means he won't be back. Goochie was bound to go for Foster, which would be a step backwards, even from Ambrose. Steven Davies would be a decent shout, but the one that I would opt for is Geraint Jones. As someone said earlier in this blog he keeps better than Prior and bats better than Ambrose. I've always been one of Jones' biggest critics, but since seeing the likes of Ambrose and Prior represent England it has become increasingly obvious that Jones is the best keeper available to us.
Therefore for the 3rd test, I say;
Strauss (c)
Cook
Key
Pietersen
Bell
Flintoff
G. Jones (wk)
Broad
Anderson
Sidebottom - Mahmood if unfit
Panesar
Complain about this comment
Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
Pieterson
Bell
Prior
Flintoff
Broad
Simon Jones
Sidebottom
Panesar
Complain about this comment
Memo to Mr. G. Miller....stick to after dinner speaking.
Also, hardly been metioned that Ashley Giles is now a selector. Surely after experiencing the highs of 2004/05 he must recall the major benefits of being in a settled squad without any sudden disruptions??
Complain about this comment
I still don't know why we are persisting with Flintoff.His bowling and batting average are both poor indicating that he is neither 1 or the other.In fact if I was Collingwood I would be very pissed that someone with a far inferior batting average and only a slightly better bowling average should suddenly take his place in the team.
The man is grossly overrated and apart from perhaps 2 goodish years has contributed next to nothing to the england team.Still all the chest beaters need an icon.
Complain about this comment
Well the selectors have their work cut out for them. I don't think they will do anything bold, but i think the sure thing is that they will have to drop Pattinson. But if i was choosing the team I would choose:
Cook
Strauss
Vaughan
Bell
Pietersen
Prior (cos Ambrose can't bat at the moment)
Broad
Flintoff
Jones or Harmison
Sidebottom (and Panesar for the final test)
Anderson
Complain about this comment
are people forgetting the amount of runs prior conceeds through dropped catches by far out weigh what he scores with the bat i would go for either james foster or chris read both excellent wicket keepers who can bat as well if not better than ambrose
Complain about this comment
Why are England so obsessed with swing? The four best bowlers in the country should be able to adapt their game to any conditions just as theAustralians do.
As far as the wicket keeper is concerned can anyone really say Ambrose looks the part? In a wicket keeper you need someone with reel character and personality with a bit of balls when batting. The answer could be to make Collingwood into a Keeper.
Complain about this comment
Chris Read will never play for England again because of his ICL connections
Complain about this comment
Simon Jones has to be recalled. The England pace attack lacks any real bite, or aggression. Jones would bring this to the side. The Saffas batsmen have had it all to easy with out polite bowling, we need to get in their faces. Jonesy's the man for the job! And while they're at it get rid of the useless Ambrose. What purpose does this guy serve, more so say than Prior? Prior was slated for not scoring enough runs, but when does the little boy currenlty behind the stumps ever hit big totals? The sooner the stop-gaps in this team make way for the heavy weights (Hamry, Jones, Hoggy) the better.
Complain about this comment
I can't believe that they're considering dropping Broad - the top run scorer in the last test. Why not drop a batsman instead? What kind of idiots are they? They drop Colllingwood on the basis of a bad umpiring decision, bring in Pattinson just when Hoggy shows some form on his home ground, stick with Vaughan come hell or high water. With selectors like these, England deserve to lose, and lose they will. Maybe then the powers that be will resign, unless they're hounded out, and then we can have real cricket.
Complain about this comment
jones and Harmison. again. world beaters. tasty. stop messing around all. you know it makes sense.
Complain about this comment
#234: Colly was dropped because he is rubbish and painful to watch. Broad can't bowl for toffee -unless he plays as a specialist batsmen he shouldn't be there - you need to take 20 wickets to win a test match,after all. S Jones or Harmison are both in form, Hoggy is past it. Vaughan will go hopefully if he fails again this test but Steyn is missing so he might score a few- more's the pity.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS