Who is for the chop?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by 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)

Why? You pick your bowlers to bowl first and foremost. And at the moment, he's probably England's best bowler. I don't see why a good bowler needs to contribute 20 runs per innings if he's a good enough bowler. Courtney Walsh certainly didn't.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by McKanga

* Read is laughably #6 batsman but keeps well. When better players are available to England should bat #8 (persist)

...Read doesn't bat at 6...

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by wpdavid

2. The myth that we're spoilt for choice with top notch bowlers

I didn't hear of this myth. As far as I know, people always realized that there wasn't much outside of England's Ashes 2005 attack. That's why Collingwood came in for Simon Jones in the 5th Test, because England were better served playing an extra batsman, given the lack of quality choices to replace Jones in the bowling attack.

[Matteh]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

Why? You pick your bowlers to bowl first and foremost. And at the moment, he's probably England's best bowler. I don't see why a good bowler needs to contribute 20 runs per innings if he's a good enough bowler. Courtney Walsh certainly didn't.

Think he was having a go at the fielding or loose bowling rather than his batting.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by Matteh

Think he was having a go at the fielding or loose bowling rather than his batting.

"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"

Where do you get that from?

[Matteh]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

"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"

Where do you get that from?

Sounds like he's giving the 20+ runs an innings away rather than scoring them.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by Matteh

Sounds like he's giving the 20+ runs an innings away rather than scoring them.

He called him a very cheap batsman. That's a very clear reference to his contributions with the bat, or lack of contributions, rather.

[Bob Bamber]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

Because apparently Mahmood can bat too.

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 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."

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

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.

Openers - I don't know I just think that in a couple of years time it'll be Cook and Strauss anyway. So why not now.

With Vaughan - I don't feel he's offered enough with the bat recently. People seem to harp on about his 3 150's but that was four years ago , and for me he hasn't done alot since (granted his 150 at Old Trafford). With the captaincy , they selected Flintoff off 3 good matches in India , and three pretty poor ones against Sri Lanka. I think Strauss captained well and his batting improved while he was captain. I disagree about your selection of a captain. A captain should be selected from the team , not put in, And I don't believe that Vaughan has the quality with the bat.

Nixon - When I said 2 ODI series I meant the Commenwealth Bank Series and the world cup.

I think we should put him there. He's looked decent with the bat and he can stick around when needed (the 60 he put on with Collingwood in India). I don't see any other choice. I definatly agree with Tremlett , but if Jones isn't fit , which I hope he is , then Tremlett would fit well at number 8.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by Bob Bamber

A captain should be selected from the team , not put in, And I don't believe that Vaughan has the quality with the bat.

A captain should not be selected by default. A player may be established in the side and an allround excellent player, but that doesn't make him the best choice for captain. I'm not yet convinced by Strauss, though he is certainly a better leader than Flintoff.

I believe Vaughan is one of the best captains in the world, if not the best. And given the likes of Pietersen, Cook, Strauss and Bell aroud him (and Collingwood, I suppose), England would benefit more from a very good captain who contributes 35 or so runs per innings than a mediocre captain who contributes 40+.

[aussie]

Originally Posted by wpdavid

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.

This is not true yo, between the the 2003 WC to now Flintoff has a very good record batting down the order for England. Even if it you want to narrow it down to innings solely @ # 6 it goes down by 3 points but in the last 4 years he has only failed in 3 series @ 6, the current series which i say its down to him not having enough cricket leading up to the series, SRI 2003 & SA 2004/05 (but he made up for that with the ball). So overall Freddie has been very consistent @ 6 since turning his game around in 2003 & in the future i can see him scoring runs againts most other international attacks.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by aussie

This is not true yo, between the the 2003 WC to now Flintoff has a very good record batting down the order for England. Even if it you want to narrow it down to innings solely @ # 6 it goes down by 3 points but in the last 4 years he has only failed in 3 series @ 6, the current series which i say its down to him not having enough cricket leading up to the series, SRI 2003 & SA 2004/05 (but he made up for that with the ball). So overall Freddie has been very consistent @ 6 since turning his game around in 2003 & in the future i can see him scoring runs againts most other international attacks.

Why must he be made to bat at number 6, regardless of whether he is good enough?

He's already England's best seam bowler and the talisman of the England team. If you can bring in a specialist to bat at 6 and relieve Flintoff and 7, why not do so? After all, he is a bowling allrounder and the less burden he has to carry with the bat, the better it is for his role with the ball, surely. Number 6 is a critical position in a batting lineup, because it's typically where the specialist batting ends. It's the point at which you can start to gauge the kind of depth a team has with the bat.

Flintoff shouldn't bat at number 6 whether or not he is capable of doing so. I'm sure many players are capable of batting at number 6 for England. You choose the best suited to the needs of the team.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Well its the argument againt 5 bowlers. There just are not enough overs for 5 bowlers to be used fully (I know England only bowled for 2 sessions in this particular case) and if you are looking to take wickets why would you go for your 5th choice bowler (Im putting Anderson ahead of Saj) ahead of your main 2 or 3?

There is little logic behind bowling a bowler you think gives you less chance of taking a wicket ahead bowlers you think are better.

By their very nature, a 5th bowler is not as highly regarded as a 1,2,or 3 and its hard to find any point in the game where you would prefer a lesser bowler bowling than a better one.

Top-post, sums up my feelings on the five bowlers vs four bowlers issue perfectly - particularly given the ongoing argument from some the Freddie needs to bat at 6 rather than 7 so you can include Saj Mahmood in the team. I've put it in my sig tla...

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

Why must he be made to bat at number 6, regardless of whether he is good enough?

He's already England's best seam bowler and the talisman of the England team. If you can bring in a specialist to bat at 6 and relieve Flintoff and 7, why not do so? After all, he is a bowling allrounder and the less burden he has to carry with the bat, the better it is for his role with the ball, surely. Number 6 is a critical position in a batting lineup, because it's typically where the specialist batting ends. It's the point at which you can start to gauge the kind of depth a team has with the bat.

Flintoff shouldn't bat at number 6 whether or not he is capable of doing so. I'm sure many players are capable of batting at number 6 for England. You choose the best suited to the needs of the team.

All i'm saying in that post is that Flintoff is very capable of batting @ 6, showing those who have repeatedly said during this series that he can't.

Overall your point is valid here, but the thing is that i've been saying is that i really can't see England breaking up the 5-man attack once all of Harmo/Oggie/Jones/Monty + Freddie are fit. So in that case Flintoff should stick @ 6.

Flintoff @ 7 does look good no doubt, but as i told you in the other thread, the keeper problem & # 8 dilemma comes up again. You are advocating Read but he's got to make runs regardless if his keep is good. The days of picking a keeper based on on glovework & disregarding his efforts with the willow are LONGGGGGGGG gone yo.

The idea of Freddie batting @ 7 depends on the fitness of Jones & the quality of the keeper.

[Langeveldt]

Absolutely ridiculous Ashes series for England.. Surely Saj Mahmood needs to go never to return, as do Read and Jones.. But who on earth could replace them? (Apart from Lewis for Mahmood as I've been saying for ages and ages)

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Langeveldt

Absolutely ridiculous Ashes series for England.. Surely Saj Mahmood needs to go never to return, as do Read and Jones.. But who on earth could replace them? (Apart from Lewis for Mahmood as I've been saying for ages and ages)

Well I suggest they invent the time machine, go back about 14 years ago and recruit Mark Boucher, Shaun Pollock, and Jacques Kallis and invent some British passports for them as well.