Who is for the chop?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by PhoenixFire

You can't drop Mahmood, Plunkett or Anderson. One bad series doesn't make Anderson a bad bowler overnight, Mahmood has potential, and Plunkett is too young to be written off just yet.

Since when do bowlers with potential learn to bowl at international level? Or rather, since when is that a good idea?

[Stumped]

thats alot to give the chop, agree with some but not others

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by Bob Bamber

Plunkett - Nothing against him. But he sort of lost out in the pecking order when he wasn't picked for the 1st/3rd test. I wonder why he didn't play because appererntly he can bat.

Because apparently Mahmood can bat too.

Trescothick - Cook and Strauss don't need disrupting at the top. It would be a bad move if he comes back.

Not sure that the Strauss-Cook partnership has been successful enough to call settled or anything close to it. I wouldn't mind seeing Cook at 3 again. But I also wouldn't want Trescothick in the team again until he scores big in County cricket.

Vaughan - As much as he offers as captain. I believe that Strauss would be a better option. Vaughany just doesn't offer enough with the bat.

Vaughan is such a good captain that I'd keep him as long as he's guiding England well. I'm not sold on Strauss as captain, and as far as I'm concerned, you don't make someone captain by default. A captain shouldn't be there simply because "he's in the team anyway."

Nixon - He'll get 2 ODI series. Unless he hits about 7-8 hundreds then I doubt he'll be considered again .

Solid wicketkeeping and a high20s average would be enough to get him through the World Cup IMO.

So the team for me next year -

1) Strauss (Captain)
2) Cook
3) Bell
4) Pietersen
5) Collingwood
6) Pothas
7) Flintoff (Or extra batsman if he isn't fit).
8) Panesar (He will be a number 8 in the future , why not now)
9) Harmison
10) Jones / Tremlett ( If Jones isn't fit move Tremlett to 8)
11) Hoggard

Panesar at 8? Extremely scary. Especially with an untried wicketkeeper-batsman at number 6. Hoggard > Harmison and Panesar. Tremlett is definitely the best batsman of the 5 listed there and Jones actually has some good potential.

[Samuel_Vimes]

Originally Posted by Poker Boy

Perhaps, but remember they picked SJ and Tremlett ahead of him when they were fit, so by logic if those two ever recover they should be ahead of him.

Tremlett's been fit since April (with a short spell off in May) and no one's bothered to pick him.

Scandalous.

My XI:

*Strauss - does well on occasion
Cook - grit
Bell - has the technique, made some tough runs this tour
Joyce - hugely talented, has done nothing wrong so far
KP - only batsman in England who can end with a 50+ average
Collingwood - sticks in, does a job (mind, so does Key...)
+Davies - Plunkett, Cook and Mahmood have been picked on showing less (though I suppose it's +Nixon for the moment...)
Flintoff - can bat with more freedom at eight, needs to be relieved of responsibility
Tremlett - bowls quick, with bounce
Hoggard - only bowler to emerge with credit from the Ashes
Panesar - removes the need for the fifth bowler, since he's capable of bowling long spells

Not much genuine bowling threat, admittedly, but neither is an attack of Fred/Jimmy/Peaceo/Monty/Saj at present.

[superkingdave]

Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes

Tremlett's been fit since April (with a short spell off in May) and no one's bothered to pick him.

Scandalous.

My XI:

*Strauss - does well on occasion
Cook - grit
Bell - has the technique, made some tough runs this tour
Joyce - hugely talented, has done nothing wrong so far
KP - only batsman in England who can end with a 50+ average
Collingwood - sticks in, does a job (mind, so does Key...)
+Davies - Plunkett, Cook and Mahmood have been picked on showing less (though I suppose it's +Nixon for the moment...)
Flintoff - can bat with more freedom at eight, needs to be relieved of responsibility
Tremlett - bowls quick, with bounce
Hoggard - only bowler to emerge with credit from the Ashes
Panesar - removes the need for the fifth bowler, since he's capable of bowling long spells

Not much genuine bowling threat, admittedly, but neither is an attack of Fred/Jimmy/Peaceo/Monty/Saj at present.

I'm afraid it might be abscene makes the heart grow fonder with Tremlett, don't think he's any more accurate or threatening than Anderson/Mahmood and is slower than both. Nixon isn't anywhere near in the frame for the test side, he's just a one day stop gap.

[Samuel_Vimes]

Originally Posted by superkingdave

I'm afraid it might be abscene makes the heart grow fonder with Tremlett, don't think he's any more accurate or threatening than Anderson/Mahmood and is slower than both.

Possibly. Did well when given the go tho. And he was twelfth man ahead of all of these in 2005 (though Jimmy was injured then?).

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by superkingdave

I'm afraid it might be abscene makes the heart grow fonder with Tremlett, don't think he's any more accurate or threatening than Anderson/Mahmood and is slower than both. Nixon isn't anywhere near in the frame for the test side, he's just a one day stop gap.

Tremlett is definitely a better bowler than Mahmood in what I've seen of both of them. He's a more developed bowler. And I don't just mean height-wise.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah I think Tremlett would be a much better option than Mahmood, and from what I've seen of him he seems much more accurate. Quite limited exposure to him though, so I might have just seen some good spells.

The reason people think Mahmood has potential is because he's fairly quick and moves the ball quite a lot through the air, and both ways, both conventional and reverse. As soon as people see a bowler with good pace who swings it, the automatic assumption is that he could be very good. Obviously Mahmood isn't very good, as you can see from his record, so he's given the "potential" label. People from outside of Australia might not have seen this, but Mahmood was talked up hugely here as a major threat for the Ashes, before the series began. In the Champions Trophy he took a couple of wickets against us, including bowling Gilchrist through the gate, and was thereafter talked up by Australian pundits and former players in the papers and on shows like Inside Cricket and so on. Obviously Harmison and Flintoff got attention too, but Panesar and Mahmood were considered England's big trump cards and surprise matchwinners right up until the PM's XI game.

I do think that Mahmood could be a good bowler if he managed to be consistent. He's certainly capable of bowling wicket taking deliveries, and that's part of the package, but I don't think it's likely that he'll ever be accurate enough, and he's never going to be anything special the way he is bowling at the moment. England would be better off picking someone different for now.

It's too bad as well, I really like watching him bowl.

[Craig]

When I first saw Saj Mahmood, I thought this guy looks like cannon fodder, he hasn't done much to prove it. Haven't seen a great deal of Liam Plunkett to comment a great deal.

Listening to Ian Chappell and reckons James Anderson has the talent to be a very good bowler, and he needs to do just that, just bowl, bowl, bowl, and bowl in matches (not the nets) and he can improve a lot and increase his confidence. He also questioned whether or not England really need Steve Harmison in the team, and if he isn't going to take the new ball, what does he offer to the team?

Geriant Jones and Chris Read are the two English wicket keepers I have seen play in the last few years (aside from James Foster and when Marcus Trescothick had a spell as a 'keeper in ODIs), and Read looks a superior gloveman but he and Jones look pretty equal with the bat.

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes

Tremlett's been fit since April (with a short spell off in May) and no one's bothered to pick him.

Scandalous.

My XI:

*Strauss - does well on occasion
Cook - grit
Bell - has the technique, made some tough runs this tour
Joyce - hugely talented, has done nothing wrong so far
KP - only batsman in England who can end with a 50+ average
Collingwood - sticks in, does a job (mind, so does Key...)
+Davies - Plunkett, Cook and Mahmood have been picked on showing less (though I suppose it's +Nixon for the moment...)
Flintoff - can bat with more freedom at eight, needs to be relieved of responsibility
Tremlett - bowls quick, with bounce
Hoggard - only bowler to emerge with credit from the Ashes
Panesar - removes the need for the fifth bowler, since he's capable of bowling long spells

Not much genuine bowling threat, admittedly, but neither is an attack of Fred/Jimmy/Peaceo/Monty/Saj at present.

Now I'm only simple with a limited knowledge of the game, but if Vaughan if fit and in form, would he be in the place of Joyce and be captain as well?

[Johnners]

no mention of Lewis? from what i've read & heard about him he seems a fair bowler, and from memory quite a few former players were upset that he didn't make the touring team...

[McKanga]

My 4 most doubtful after Ist innings in Sydney:
* Pannesar is a good bowler but a very cheap batsman. He is a deserved cult figure but must be good for 20+ runs an innings (persist)
* Anderson fielded particularly well (persist)
* Read is laughably #6 batsman but keeps well. When better players are available to England should bat #8 (persist)
* Mahmood has some sort of attitude problem (drop)

[wpdavid]

I suppose the only good thing about this series is that it's totally exploded a few myths, and, if English cricket can actually face up to reality then we might go forward.

1. The myth that we're spoilt for choice with top notch batters.
Actually we're spoilt for choice with batters who can do respectably against moderate attacks on easy wickets. Only KP has consistently shown the stomach for this particular battle. Cook will probably improve, but only if he's prepared to learn from his mistakes out here, and not assume everything's OK when he fills his boots against easier attacks. Strauss has been feeble, even allowing for the spate of duff decisions, and you have to wonder if he's mentally tough enough. Bell has improved and will probably continue to do so, but he's still underachieved given the number of starts that he's made. Collingwood's managed to reach 30 twice in 9 completed innings: nuff said.

2. The myth that we're spoilt for choice with top notch bowlers
We heard so much of this after 2005, when the reality was that Fred & Jones were world class, with the other only making occasional contributions. Even now, too many people seem to be in denial about what's happened over the last 6 weeks (or the last 2 years if we're talking about one particular waste of space). Actually, we have a worthy trier in Hoggard who will occasionally pick up more than a couple of wickets in an innings, and a genuine threat in Flintoff, although it's hard to see him lasting much longer. Harmison's continued to do what he's done since Dec 2004 and I genuinely have no idea why otherwise sensible contributors to CW still include him in their side. Mahmood is patently not ready. The jury's out on Anderson until he gets a decent run in the side. And we're all guessing about Tremlett, Pluknett, Broad et al.

3. The myth that Flintoff is a test number 6.
Not against anyone good, he isn't. Not consistently, anyway. Give the man a break, please.


There's more, but I'm supposed to be teaching in a minute ......

[wpdavid]

Good piece by Gideon Haigh about Harmy

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/eyeontheas..._done.php#more

[Samuel_Vimes]

Originally Posted by Craig

Now I'm only simple with a limited knowledge of the game, but if Vaughan if fit and in form, would he be in the place of Joyce and be captain as well?

See, that's a massive if.