England 17-man squad

[zaremba]

It seems Harmison bowls at 90mph so rarely these days that people forget he's mostly useless even when he does so.

We disagree on this.

 

[Richard]

So go on, tell me - when recently has Harmison been effective (not looked decent-ish and ended-up with 4-133 - actually taken the hauls by bowling wicket-taking balls)? And how many times has he been ineffective bowling at 90mph?

 

[four_or_six]

So go on, tell me - when recently has Harmison been effective (not looked decent-ish and ended-up with 4-133 - actually taken the hauls by bowling wicket-taking balls)? And how many times has he been ineffective bowling at 90mph?

In two hostile spells after tea, Harmison claimed 5 for 18 in nine overs, leaving Warwickshire's last pair requiring 20 more on the final morning if they are to avoid the follow-on.

....

It was the manner of Harmison's wickets that was most impressive. He tore through Warwickshire's much-vaunted middle-order in an outstanding demonstration of sustained aggression, making international batsmen appear timid and uncertain.

Nor was the damage just on the scorecard. Harmison also landed three crashing blows on the head, hand and arm of Tony Frost, Ian Bell and Chris Woakes respectively. It was, one lot of five wides apart, a top-quality spell of fast bowling that will not so much nudge the England selectors as grab them by the shoulders and shake them.

Yesterday, according to cricinfo.

 

[zaremba]

So go on, tell me - when recently has Harmison been effective (not looked decent-ish and ended-up with 4-133 - actually taken the hauls by bowling wicket-taking balls)? And how many times has he been ineffective bowling at 90mph?

I'm fairly keen not to get sucked to deeply into a debate about this Richard because I genuinely don't think there's the slightest chance it will change your mind on the subject.

An illustration of our different perspectives on this point is how well Harmison bowled against the convicts at Lord's in 2005. I've seen what you've written about that in the past, and I take a very different view. I know that you don't set much store by opposing players' views of bowlers, but I do: and you will have read how highly Justin Langer, for instance, rates (a) Harmison's bowling that day and (b) the combined effect of Harmison and Flintoff as essential components of the best pack of fast bowlers he'd ever faced. (Don't ask me to dig up the quote because I probably can't find it, but he did say this).

Likewise, you take a different view from mine about the merits of Harmison's main weapons, namely pace, bounce and awkwardness of angle. I think that these are in themselves potent weapons, and you don't.

So let's agree to disagree.

Having said all of which, we can agree to agree that if he's bowling at 80mph there is a troupe of other medium-pacers who should walk into the team ahead of him.

 

[tooextracool]

I'd go for:

Andrew Strauss *
Alastair Cook
Ravi Bopara
Kevin Pietersen
Paul Collingwood
Matthew Prior +
Andrew Flintoff
Stuart Broad
Graeme Swann
Ryan Sidebottom
James Anderson

Graham Onions
Tim Ambrose/Steven Davies
Samit Patel
Ian Bell
Adil Rashid
Stephen Harmison (has decent enough figures in FC games this year)

If Sidebottom makes the starting XI ahead of Onions it will be one hell of a travesty. Why? Because Onions currently has 42 wickets at 15.14 this season vs Sidebottom's 7 @ 31.42, not to mention is man in possession having played the last test match and did nothing wrong to be dropped.

 

[aussie]

If Sidebottom makes the starting XI ahead of Onions it will be one hell of a travesty. Why? Because Onions currently has 42 wickets at 15.14 this season vs Sidebottom's 7 @ 31.42, not to mention is man in possession having played the last test match and did nothing wrong to be dropped.

Sidebottom is better than Onions hand's down as a test match bowler. Now that he seems to be fit again & bowling - he should come right back into the side.

Regardless of how well Onions has bowled for Durham, i was that overly impressed with him vs WI.

 

[Manee]

Sidebottom is better than Onions hand's down as a test match bowler. Now that he seems to be fit again & bowling - he should come right back into the side.

Regardless of how well Onions has bowled for Durham, i was that overly impressed with him vs WI.

I'd disagree. You cannot argue with Onions who took wickets for England and has backed his debut up with some tremendously strong Division One performances. Onions gets close to the stumps and swings it away, there is little saying that he cannot be a potent Test wicket taker, imo.

 

[Richard]

An illustration of our different perspectives on this point is how well Harmison bowled against the convicts at Lord's in 2005. I've seen what you've written about that in the past, and I take a very different view. I know that you don't set much store by opposing players' views of bowlers, but I do: and you will have read how highly Justin Langer, for instance, rates (a) Harmison's bowling that day and (b) the combined effect of Harmison and Flintoff as essential components of the best pack of fast bowlers he'd ever faced. (Don't ask me to dig up the quote because I probably can't find it, but he did say this).

Likewise, you take a different view from mine about the merits of Harmison's main weapons, namely pace, bounce and awkwardness of angle. I think that these are in themselves potent weapons, and you don't.

So let's agree to disagree.

Fair enough. I'd add, however, that I don't set no stall by opposing batsmen's view of bowlers, but I don't care greatly if opposing batsmen found a bowler difficult but he did not get many of them out. And no, Harmison at Lord's in 2005 did not get very many Australian top-order batsmen out during the time they were at the wicket with other top-order batsmen. In fact, he did this on a whole two occasions - Ponting in the first-innings, Martyn in the second- (he twice dismissed Katich when batting with the tail and playing out-of-character strokes; he also removed four tailenders).

Also I could give you a fair few other occasions where Harmison has bowled at 90mph - a few even where he's bowled 90mph and good areas - and still had no wicket-taking effect.

I've seen Harmison get wickets with poor 90mph bowling; I've seen him get wickets with poor 83-84mph bowling. I've also seen him get wickets with decent-though-not-outstanding bowling of both the aforementioned speeds. I've also seen him look best when he doesn't bowl the in-between length but pitches it up fully.

So I don't think the "Harmison only needs to bowl quickly and short of length and he'll take wickets" mantra holds any water. I've seen enough evidence to disprove it, to me. If others haven't, that is, of course, their choice.

 

[rivera213]

I'd disagree. You cannot argue with Onions who took wickets for England and has backed his debut up with some tremendously strong Division One performances. Onions gets close to the stumps and swings it away, there is little saying that he cannot be a potent Test wicket taker, imo.

Completely agree.

Onions of the last 2 seasons has been very good, and this season he's been especially good. The fact he has bowled a number of deliveries too good for county hacks to play isn't his fault. I think looking

There is a case for BOTH Onions and Sidebottom being in the team since Sidebottom on top form is better than Broad.

That wont happen since Broad is the golden boy, but Sidebottom will cause the top Aussie batsmen more trouble than Broad at this moment in time.

Whether the Aussie bowlers are better than I think, they aren't McGrath-Gillespie-Warne so there's no need to have a top 9 who can all bat. You need 20 wickets to win a game, and as long as Sidebottom proves his fitness, he'll give us more chance of doing that than Broad IMHO.

 

[Manee]

I disagree. Broad has bowled very well at FC cricket in his limited chances over the past two seasons (albeit only two or three games from my recollection) and, more importantly, has done well in Test cricket in recent times with the ball and bat. He is a valuable member as an all rounder as Flintoff continues to show that his batting form is far more miss than hit.

 

[tooextracool]

There is no reason to drop Broad, one could argue that if any England bowler managed to develop his skills having played on some of the flattest tracks during the winter, its Stuart Broad and you can tell that hes come out a much stronger bowler as a result of it.

Like it or not, there is absolutely no evidence for why Ryan Sidebottom should play in the first test, hes done absolutely nothing to deserve a place other than bowl well in the t20 format which means squat.

 

[Woodster]

Stuart Broad is an interesting one for me. I'm not totally sold on him as either a batsman or a bowler to date. His bowling does seem to be improving but I'm not entirely sure of his exact style, and type of bowler. At times he appears to have the accuracy to be Mcgrath-like, where as recently his pace has increased and he seems to be more a strike bowler. Perhaps it's me, but I don't think he exact role is defined yet, although I appreciate he is still very young and learning the role himself. If his accuracy does become a consistent factor, then he will be a real handful.

His batting shows signs of real quality, but again there is something missing for him to really go on and be an out and out all-rounder, in fact that's something I don't think he will achieve, he is far too loose against good bowling.

If he continues to improve, then who knows where he may end up, but at the moment I do think that 'Siddy' is a better option with the ball, but it may be to our benfit should we stick with Broad and let him learn what top class cricket is all about.

 

[Neil Pickup]

If Sidebottom makes the starting XI ahead of Onions it will be one hell of a travesty. Why? Because Onions currently has 42 wickets at 15.14 this season vs Sidebottom's 7 @ 31.42, not to mention is man in possession having played the last test match and did nothing wrong to be dropped.

51 wickets @ 14.96 including five 5-fors.

 

[tooextracool]

51 wickets @ 14.96 including five 5-fors.

If you drop a bowler with that kind of record for the season from the side, there could be a genuine claim that you have lost your marbles

 

[rivera213]

I disagree. Broad has bowled very well at FC cricket in his limited chances over the past two seasons (albeit only two or three games from my recollection) and, more importantly, has done well in Test cricket in recent times with the ball and bat. He is a valuable member as an all rounder as Flintoff continues to show that his batting form is far more miss than hit.

But Broad didn't bowl as well as either Anderson or Onions in seam friendly conditions. At the very least, he should be demoted to first change bowler.

Flintoff gets into the team as a bowler, his batting is very much secondary so as long as he's bowling well, he has to be in the team and he seems to be bowling well for Lancs.

With Prior @ 6, and Swann (who is a better batsman in reality than Broad is at the moment) and Flintoff @ 7 and 8 (don't know which order) that should be deep enough to post some half-decent totals against an Aussie attack far lesser in quality than previous teams.

There is no reason to drop Broad, one could argue that if any England bowler managed to develop his skills having played on some of the flattest tracks during the winter, its Stuart Broad and you can tell that hes come out a much stronger bowler as a result of it.

I don't disagree that Broad is far better now than when he first came into the team, but he still isn't test class against a top team IMO.

Who do you think Australia would rather face- Broad or a pumped-up fluent Sidebottom who swings the ball into RH?

The one type of bowling that Aussies have struggled with (which proved their undoing in 2005) is swing. Broad doesn't swing the ball, Sidebottom does and he'll give us a far better chance of beating Australia than Broad does imho.

 

[tooextracool]

But Broad didn't bowl as well as either Anderson or Onions in seam friendly conditions. At the very least, he should be demoted to first change bowler.

Yep, agree with that. Id give Anderson and Onions the new ball, with Flintoff first change and Broad second. Neither of them (Freddie and Broad) strike me as being good new ball bowlers and I think the combination of Onions and Anderson would complement each other quite well.

I don't disagree that Broad is far better now than when he first came into the team, but he still isn't test class against a top team IMO.


Who do you think Australia would rather face- Broad or a pumped-up fluent Sidebottom who swings the ball into RH?

The one type of bowling that Aussies have struggled with (which proved their undoing in 2005) is swing. Broad doesn't swing the ball, Sidebottom does and he'll give us a far better chance of beating Australia than Broad does imho.

The thing is, Sidebottom has yet to show that he can take wickets against a top quality side, or any side for that matter outside of England and NZ, the 2 most swing friendly countries in the world. If Sidebottom is bowling consistently at 86-88mph as he was during the t20 world cup, there might be an argument. However, Sidebottom bowling at less than 85 mph is completely and utterly hopeless, swing or no swing. Given Sidebottom's constant battle against fitness, it seems a futile argument IMO.

 

[rivera213]

The thing is, Sidebottom has yet to show that he can take wickets against a top quality side, or any side for that matter outside of England and NZ, the 2 most swing friendly countries in the world. If Sidebottom is bowling consistently at 86-88mph as he was during the t20 world cup, there might be an argument. However, Sidebottom bowling at less than 85 mph is completely and utterly hopeless, swing or no swing. Given Sidebottom's constant battle against fitness, it seems a futile argument IMO.

We have a number of bowlers who would be largely nullified outside of England, but luckily the Ashes series is IN England so that doesn't matter for the immediate future.

I agree that fitness will be the main problem (when he's fit, he can continue to bowl in the mid 80's since he maxes 90mph+ when not trying to move the ball) and that when he's bowling low-80's he gets jumped on by even half-decent test batsmen

I don't think he'll play til at least the 3rd test, and only then if Broad or the 4th seamer gets hammered and becomes a liability BUT we still have a chance of winning the series.

Sid will have 3 CC games to prove his fitness and get back to bowling well for sustained periods (30th June-3rd July vs Lancashire; 15th-18th July vs Somerset and 21st-24th vs Yorkshire).

If Broad fails, and I'm hoping he has a blinding series, then Sid will hopefully be reading to come in for the 3rd test @ Edgbaston which starts on the 30th July. He could of course break down again though, as you say.

Onions and Anderson need to be our opening ball partnership for the Ashes IMO and get into the LH openers.

Regardless................. Bangalore rule! Lol.

 

[tooextracool]

We have a number of bowlers who would be largely nullified outside of England, but luckily the Ashes series is IN England so that doesn't matter for the immediate future.

I agree that fitness will be the main problem (when he's fit, he can continue to bowl in the mid 80's since he maxes 90mph+ when not trying to move the ball) and that when he's bowling low-80's he gets jumped on by even half-decent test batsmen

I don't think he'll play til at least the 3rd test, and only then if Broad or the 4th seamer gets hammered and becomes a liability BUT we still have a chance of winning the series.

Sid will have 3 CC games to prove his fitness and get back to bowling well for sustained periods (30th June-3rd July vs Lancashire; 15th-18th July vs Somerset and 21st-24th vs Yorkshire).

If Broad fails, and I'm hoping he has a blinding series, then Sid will hopefully be reading to come in for the 3rd test @ Edgbaston which starts on the 30th July. He could of course break down again though, as you say.

Onions and Anderson need to be our opening ball partnership for the Ashes IMO and get into the LH openers.

Regardless................. Bangalore rule! Lol.

Yeah cant fault that, Sid should definetly be first in line. Harmison is an interesting case though, because IMO its fairly obvious that at home hes a far more potent bowler than abroad and he could provide something which the rest of the attack completely lacks. We saw last year against SA that he added a completely different dimension to the side when he played at the Oval, and whilst he is going to struggle away from home, he could also be something of a handy option to have on the faster or bouncier pitches at home.

 

[aussie]

The thing is, Sidebottom has yet to show that he can take wickets against a top quality side, or any side for that matter outside of England and NZ, the 2 most swing friendly countries in the world. If Sidebottom is bowling consistently at 86-88mph as he was during the t20 world cup, there might be an argument. However, Sidebottom bowling at less than 85 mph is completely and utterly hopeless, swing or no swing. Given Sidebottom's constant battle against fitness, it seems a futile argument IMO.

It hasn't really been that futile though its, just at the end of last summer. He never had a serious injury woe/layoff throughout his county career.

As i said before Onions although he has been brillaint in FC & did his job vs WI. Just like what Warne said about Bopara the other day, unfortunately i have the same feelings about Onions as a bowler going into the Ashes.

 

[tooextracool]

It hasn't really been that futile though its, just at the end of last summer. He never had a serious injury woe/layoff throughout his county career.

As i said before Onions although he has been brillaint in FC & did his job vs WI. Just like what Warne said about Bopara the other day, unfortunately i have the same feelings about Onions as a bowler going into the Ashes.[/QUOTE]

Im not sure what Sidebottom's CC career was like, but hes in his early 30s, its hardly going to get better for him from here. He hasnt proved that hes recovered from all of his injuries because hes yet to take wickets in CC, and 4 overs per game in t20s doesnt prove much.

As far as Onions is concerned, in the games against the WI, he was hitting lengths that were extremely awkward for any batsman, the so called length at which a batsman is not really sure whether to go forward or back. Either way, you cant drop someone who has done everything right. He might struggle at Cardiff given whats expected, but at Lords, he could be extremely useful.