Ashes

[scorpio]

Ashes:

This is one series aussies and poms look forward too...Here is my take on the teams and possible combinations.

First a few clarifications. Luckyed seems to have a real dislike of tudor and flinty (so do many others.and this is not a knock) and grt love for cork. I am not sure what else flintoff has to do to prove he is a quality test level allrounder...may be you guys can explain..

First batting order:

1. Trescothick: He must be the first player england has to pick. He is their top player by a mile.

2. Vaughan : He is a shoo in too. Quality batsman and looks to be tough mentally..

3. Butcher: Lots of grit. Though i liked the younger version better. He seems to have lost a bit of flair but nevertheless still good.

4. Hussain: Not a very good batsman...but excellent captaincy and guts put him in the team

5. Stewart : Good batsman. Decent keeper. Can be a reasonable match to gilly.


This 6th slot is up for grabs.

My picks are either KEY , RAMPRAKASH or some other wildcard. This slot could make a world of diff....


7. Andy Flintoff: he is theplayer who gives england the most value for money. Good 3rd or 4th seamer. Decent batsman. Hope hussain uses him properly.
For all those who criticized him...get this..performing with hernia is not the easiest thing in the world..( i had it..so know from personal experience)

He is easily one of the top 5 Genuine allrounders in the world. Wht do u expect from him? Bat like trescothink and bowl like Akhtar ?
Give the guy a break...if u want to criticize...pick hussain for using him negatively..he is a pretty good support seamer..plus england is not awash with allrounders now..

8. Gough: If fit he is a must...despite poor record against aus. Hopefully he will engage brain before bowling

Now comes some major choices for england.

They have to pick 3 from the following 4 names in my opinion.

Hoggard, tudor,Jones,Giles.

Hoggard is a quality seamer but might struggle on flat pitches.

Tudor is clearly one of englands best bowlers...but has to toughen up physically and mentally...plus he can hold the bat welltoo..

Jones...could be englands future..has to go a long way...but i believe he should play against aussie

Giles: Ok..not the world's most talented..but from what i have seen he is a pretty good spinner..on spinning wickets and flat pitches can atleast tie the batsmen in. Depends on the conditions..and how hussain uses him..


Now for the rejects:
Cork and White: Has beens. Cork cant bat or bowl..same with white( Notwithstanding the centuries against india). Cork lacks genuine pace and now is like Prasad with a little more bluster. White is not a test bowler...never before..and not any more

Caddick: He is a rhythm bowler who is fragile mentally and doenst travel well. Aussies will eat him alive. Morever he never performs when required...really not the man u need to fight againt australia.

Thorpe: Very unfortunate..but not fit mentally now.

Harmison: Too raw..and not good nuff yet....


Tactics:

First off...despite all the hoopla over the defensive tactics england will have to employ them to a certain extent to frustrate the likes of ponting and gilly..but not take it to ridiculous extremes.

Smash warne...he is living off reputation and Aussie pace attack. England have to get in thier mind that he is just a hasbeen now and learn from new zea..

Take out Macgrath ...and oz pace attack is just as good as england. They have to adapt the kiwi tactics to blunt him..the rest can be played on merit.

Trescothick and Vaughan should play their natural game and take the attack to the aussies..despite all the strong front australia is mentally fragile too..

Hussain must learn to handle normal conditions and not be too defensive.

The english team should pull together and not play well after the cause is lost.


I guess i could have written this as a article...oh well..i will write the aussie part when i have time...

ciao all..



[Edited on 8/28/02 by scorpio]

 

[scorpio]

1. Learn to bat
2. Learn to bowl
3. er
4. That's it

First off...considering your blind support for Cork...thts a bit rich.

Flintoff has got pace...stamina..can hit the deck hard and swings the ball. He is a good nuff bowler to merit a place in this english team anyday.

He has had a few bad days...but he has set up atleast two english victories with his batting. He is still improving.

Blame Hussain for his negative bowling and take off the tinted glasses plz..

 

[luckyeddie]

Doesn't it look funny when someone deletes a message - and the reply is still there?

 

[luckyeddie]

OK, joking apart, Flintoff takes less than one wicket per innings.

Cork takes almost two.

There is no dispute over who is the better hitter - that is Flintoff by a mile.

Flintoff has the ability to become a fine all-rounder - if he does not progress any further then he will not qualify for the word 'fine', only 'useful'.

You claim that he has 'set up two England victories with his batting'.

Might I remind you that Cork has won games with both bat and ball?

If you are wondering why I advocate Cork in the England side, it is because he is a fighter.

I would not necessarily put Cork in the side in place of your favourite, but I would certainly pick him in advance of the likes of Tudor and White.

And when are people ever going to get it into their heads that faster does not necessarily mean better? If that were the case, McGrath, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock and so would have been discarded ages ago.

 

[Gotchya]

7. Andy Flintoff: he is theplayer who gives england the most value for money. Good 3rd or 4th seamer. Decent batsman. Hope hussain uses him properly.
For all those who criticized him...get this..performing with hernia is not the easiest thing in the world..( i had it..so know from personal experience)

He is easily one of the top 5 Genuine allrounders in the world. Wht do u expect from him? Bat like trescothink and bowl like Akhtar ?
Give the guy a break...if u want to criticize...pick hussain for using him negatively..he is a pretty good support seamer..plus england is not awash with allrounders now..

That still doesn't convince me that he should be in a TEST side......but if you are saying that he's all england have got you might be a winkle right....got to do with all that they have.

Totally agreed that england will have to get an agressive and attacking outlook from now onwards not just the ashes.Surprise the aussies Yeah ! Gotta get rid of the 'Keep plodding away' cricket once and forall

 

[luckyeddie]

Flintoff has got pace...stamina..can hit the deck hard and swings the ball. He is a good nuff bowler to merit a place in this english team anyday.

Right. First things first - I am not knocking Andrew Flintoff - I am just suggesting that he is not as good as everyone keeps assuming.

But let's take each point which Scorpio makes in turn (no kidding this time)...

1. Flintoff has got pace.
No argument there.

2. Stamina.
Again, no problem with that. I would also add brave - to bowl with a hernia is a big deal.

3. Can hit the deck hard.
Yes...

4. and swings the ball.
Utter rubbish. Swinging the ball is most definitely not one of his skills. The fact that occasionally one of his balls does swing does not make him a swing bowler.

5. Good enough bowler to merit his place in the England side.
Utter rubbish. He is not good enough to merit his place as a bowler. If you had a mainline bowler who took 33 wickets in 21 tests, you would not win many games.

Now enough of the insinuation that Flintoff is a better bowler (and a swing bowler to boot) than Cork. He is a batter who could be a useful bowler - no more, no less.

 

[scorpio]

Luckyed:

First off for bowling fast...u need pace. Flintoff has loadsof it...cork doesnt have anymore.

Cork might be useful in helpful english conditions..but not anywhere else. As i said before he is a english version of prasad...wily, and spirited...but not equipped anymore.

Let me show u why.

Over the last 3 yrs he averages 30 with the ball.
Plyed 11 tests.
Home 9 - 22.5
Away 2 - 41.5

Obviosly he hasnt played away much. WHy ? coz he doesnt have the pace to trouble anyone..unless the ball swings he is worthless for all his bluster.

Even at home his last decent performance came way back in 2000 against a weakened windies at helpful conditions.

Since then he has sucked worser than a vaccum cleaner.

He was good when young in 95 and 96. Now without his pace he is like a defanged snake. just alotof hissing..thts all.

Flintoff is the future. Dont go by statistics alone. He played on some dead wickets in India and NZ. He bowled well nuff in india...and was quite effective against sachin in the first and second test...to a certain extent. Part of the blame has to go to Hussain.

DOnt blame giles or Flintoff...blame Hussains and Fletchers tactice. Or better dont shoot the messenger.

Also flintoff is like srinath in a way. Fast, intimidating...but lacking that special something, unlucky, Predominant wicket takin ball is the inswinger. (Not as good as srinath certainly)

Give him time..he should do well...

Sorry to shoot ur fav player to pieces...but his time is up.

As regarding flintoff being my fav...i hate his as much as i hate ganguly...but you have to respect their ability and performance..

Ciao

 

[luckyeddie]

Obviosly he hasnt played away much. WHy ? coz he doesnt have the pace to trouble anyone..unless the ball swings he is worthless for all his bluster

No, he has had operations the last two winters.

Oh, and he was never a FAST bowler. When he first came into the England side he was a swing and seam bowler - and he still is now.

I suggest you restrict your digs to subjects you know something about.

Flintoff is the future. Dont go by statistics alone

Isn't that what you have just done by quoting statistics regarding Cork? Or is it that your statistics are meaningful and mine are not?

 

[Anil]

Flintoff is a better batsman(potentially atleast) than Cork. By the same token, Cork is a much better bowler even now.

Flintoff cannot be used as a strike bowler atleast not now. He can at best be a good support bowler who can chip in with valuable wickets every now and then. Showing aggro alone doesn't make anyone a good bowler. The way he pitched short against the Indians on a helpful wicket in Headingley(agreed, it was on Hussain's instructions, yet...), he didn't win too many bowling points.

The potential is there, to develop into a very good all-rounder. It all depends on injuries(or lack of) and how his captain(s) handle(s) him.

 

[Top_Cat]

Okay well, I've never been known to shy away from offering my own two cents so here goes.

1. Trescothick: He must be the first player england has to pick. He is their top player by a mile.

He is certainly one of England's best players but he still closes the face of his bat a little too much and angles it slightly. On reasonably bouncy wickets like Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane or Melbourne, he will have to adjust his technique or get used to giving the Aussie slips cordon catching practice.

2. Vaughan : He is a shoo in too. Quality batsman and looks to be tough mentally..

Tough mentally maybe but his technique is deficient. Too much of the angled bat outside off-stump. Again in Australia, he might struggle unless he corrects this and plays a lot straighter.

3. Butcher: Lots of grit. Though i liked the younger version better. He seems to have lost a bit of flair but nevertheless still good.

I think he's improved quite substantially and will do well on this trip. Still a bit tentative transferring his weight onto the front-foot outside off-stump.

4. Hussain: Not a very good batsman...but excellent captaincy and guts put him in the team

I rate him pretty highly against the Aussies. Tends to get his back up against guys like McGrath and co. I think he'll do well.

5. Stewart : Good batsman. Decent keeper. Can be a reasonable match to gilly.

Say what? Alec Stewart when he was at his peak 5 years ago was 'a reasonable match to Gilly'. He's a has-been now and quite frankly, I don't know why they'd even bother to bring him for the trip. Blood someone younger I reckon. What, doesn't the English system have any keepers worth trying?

7. Andy Flintoff: he is theplayer who gives england the most value for money. Good 3rd or 4th seamer. Decent batsman. Hope hussain uses him properly.
For all those who criticized him...get this..performing with hernia is not the easiest thing in the world..( i had it..so know from personal experience)

He is easily one of the top 5 Genuine allrounders in the world. Wht do u expect from him? Bat like trescothink and bowl like Akhtar ?
Give the guy a break...if u want to criticize...pick hussain for using him negatively..he is a pretty good support seamer..plus england is not awash with allrounders now..

He's a guy who can hit pretty well and bowl seam-up for a while to give the real bowlers a rest. Unless he develops his bowling a bit, well seam-up military mediums tend to get eaten alive in Australia. Hit hitting might win a one-day match or two but in the Test arena, his little pokes outside off-stump just give edges.

8. Gough: If fit he is a must...despite poor record against aus. Hopefully he will engage brain before bowling

Agreed. Personally I think he'd over-rated these days but maybe he'll take some wickets on Aussie soil.

Hoggard, tudor,Jones,Giles.

I'd go for Hoggard, Jones and Giles. You need a spinner and although I would have picked Tudor automatically a few years ago, now he seems to hold back when he bowls. I think it's a function of how much cricket he plays but I remember when he first played a little while ago and he had some serious pace. Now he's McGrath's pace and it's sad.

Take out Macgrath ...and oz pace attack is just as good as england.

Whatever. Compare Tudor and Hoggard with Gillespie and Lee (disregarding stats even) and the comparison ain't too favourable to the England pacers.
And comparing Warne to Giles is ridiculous too.

They have to adapt the kiwi tactics to blunt him

Oh you mean the 'keep him out at all costs and take no risks' idea? Hardly a new one and would work against any bowler I'm afraid.

And may I remind you that the only reason NZ didn't lose the series at least 2-0 was because of rain? Sure NZ almost won the first Test but if it wasn't for the rain and both captains desire for a result, Steve Waugh would have batted for MUCH longer in the 2nd innings and NZ would have been chasing 400+ instead of the 200-odd they were chasing. And then there's the second Test. NZ only hit their batting straps in the third Test (and they batted very very well) but would they have batted quite as well if they were 2-0 down instead of the series tied at 0-0? Who knows...........

Either way 0-0 was in NO way an accurate reflection of who dominated the series and the fact that Glenn McGrath bowled more maidens in the series and got hit for fewer runs per over than anyone who bowled a decent amount of overs says much about NZ's 'tactics' against him. Plain and simple, they just tried to keep him out and it worked. Only problem is that it pressures you to score more off the other bowlers and other than the third Test, NZ couldn't do it.

The english team should pull together and not play well after the cause is lost.

And this is part of why the Aussies generally don't lose many Tests. They win the little battles which result in winning Tests, not the battles after the fact which other teams tend to do. They do the job when it's required, not when they feel the pressure is off and they can relax.

Personally, on current form I don't think the English will win a Test (unles the Aussies are stupid enough to give them another one) because I thought the team which came here last time and played against the Aussies in England in 1997 was MUCH stronger.

Hopefully I'm wrong and we see a good contest but I seriously doubt it.

 

[scorpio]

Oh, and he was never a FAST bowler. When he first came into the England side he was a swing and seam bowler - and he still is now.

I suggest you restrict your digs to subjects you know something about.

Why does it hurt that your fav bowler is just a county cricket bully and a bits and pieces bowler at international level ?

When i said he doesnt have the pace...i meant.. He has lost more than a couple of yards compared to his heyday. hence the comparison with prasad - who is at a very similar stage(Infact their careers are so similar)

There is lot of difference between swinging the ball at HOGGARDS PACE and BANGARS PACE..or even Styris's pace.

I did not quote the statistics coz obviosly you did it already and i did not have anything to add new.

But you made the stupid mistake of writing that CORK TAKES 4 WICKETS PER GAME..riiiight

He took his wickets and was a effective bowler last in 1998 and before. Ever since his injuries and loss of form he has not been the same bowler. Every knowledgeble cricket writer and critic has acknowledged this.

REGARDING FLINTOFF's STATS:
He started out as a bits and pieces cricketer who could hit the ball hard and bowl as a 5th bowler. I remember very well him bowling at 120 to 130 miles.(WHich also happens to be corks peak speed now..heh)

But he came back last year as a bowler who can genuinely bowl at just below express pace and hit 90 occasionally. He also hit bad form with bat ...thouhg performed in one days and in the NEW Zealand series.

CORK is a fossil now...going by the way he was treated by india. And no allrounder by any stretch of imagination at international level.

Flintoff is one. Atleast for now. He can bowl fast,has control, and can certainly hit the ball..

 

[scorpio]

TOP_CAT:

Trescothick is my personal fav. He has shades of greenidge and Slater when he plays well.Flamboyant but correct. I am very confident tht he will make the adjustment and take the fight to the aussies.
Agreed abt vaughan...though the same can be said of laxman to a extent and he did well.

Stewart: The qualifier is reasonable..heh. He is the best england got..so ...

Flintoff: He could be their biggest wild card yet.

i have only selected 6 batsman...he as the 7th could make a world of difference if he clicks. Also england need 5 bowlers to bowl out australia. So his presence adds a lot of depth. I do agree he has to improve ...but i am counting on a quantum leap from him like he did last yr.

Gough certainly is overrrated..but with support can really cut into the aussies. I guess the trouble with him is his head. Hope is sorts it out.

Since when did u add giles and warne into the pace attack?

Gillespie is definetly good...but even in the indian series where he bowler so well..i still keep thinking he lacks some thing like srinath did. He is not a lot better than Gough.

Lee: A wild card..with trescothick and vaughan i guess it could backfire. But he is a good home bowler..so i could be wrong.

and i will never be dumb nuff to compare giles with warne..lol

I certainly agree with u tht Auss was the better side...but Kiwi's just did well when it mattered. Save for gilly it could have easily gone pear shaped.

The important thing abt thier tactic was they stuck to a plan long nuff for it to work. They also gave Mcgrath his worst series figures of his career and also his first bad figs in nearly 5 yrs...says some thing abt the effectiveness..

THis england team has the best chance...if they take it that is..

 

[Top_Cat]

Agreed abt vaughan...though the same can be said of laxman to a extent and he did well.

Ah yes but have a look where he did well; in india he batted brilliantly and in Australia his big innings was in Sydney, probably Aussie's slowest a lowest pitch. Don't get me wrong, I rate Laxman VERY highly but I'm just saying his best results come on pitches where his angled bat and weakness outside off-stump doesn't get exploited.

I still say Laxman should be opening the batting for India too.

The important thing abt thier tactic was they stuck to a plan long nuff for it to work. They also gave Mcgrath his worst series figures of his career and also his first bad figs in nearly 5 yrs...says some thing abt the effectiveness..

Against him, yes but if you just keep a bowler out, you have to score more against the rest of the bowlers in the attack and who's to say a tactic like that won't backfire when one of the other bowlers has an exceptional series.

I've never ben a big fan of just keeping someone out. Find a way to score off them (there is ALWAYS a way) and then have to guts to do it. Just blocking them is almost admitting defeat from the git-go and that's particularly dangerous at higher levels of the game.

 

[scorpio]

Against him, yes but if you just keep a bowler out, you have to score more against the rest of the bowlers in the attack and who's to say a tactic like that won't backfire when one of the other bowlers has an exceptional series.

I've never ben a big fan of just keeping someone out. Find a way to score off them (there is ALWAYS a way) and then have to guts to do it. Just blocking them is almost admitting defeat from the git-go and that's particularly dangerous at higher levels of the game.

Not so simplistic bud. It depends on various factors.

1. Depends on who the favorite is...for example if australia and eng draw it will be considered a defeat for australia...
so aussies will try to take the initiative. Could backfire...as it did in Headingley (butcher century) and the escape against Kiwis.

2. Depends on the players mentality. If you are gonna bowl outside the offstump to waugh, dravid , kirsten they will wait till the cows come home. But against Ponting ,gilchrist, sachin,gibbs....it might make them try some thing different to get on top.

3. Depends on player perception. A established team like aussies might think that thy have to put in place some upstarts like Jones and Hoggard.

4. And when u dont have the firepower this is the best tactic.

Moreover as the kiwis and Indians showed when put under pressure aussies are no tough men. Much of the battle will be fought before the series starts and in the first test. If england survive it...they can be champs...or aussie will walk it.
I dont think it could be close.

I really should write my opinion piece on australia soon..

 

[Top_Cat]

1. Depends on who the favorite is...for example if australia and eng draw it will be considered a defeat for australia...
so aussies will try to take the initiative. Could backfire...as it did in Headingley (butcher century) and the escape against Kiwis.

This is mitigated against by the fact that even if the series is drawn and it's a 'moral' victory for the English, we'll still keep the Ashes so it's still a win.

Either way, you won't convince me that just keeping out a bowler at Test level is good enough to win. A team should back themselves because, as you said, Glenn McGrath isn't invincible. If you put the pressure on, who knows what might happen to his state of mind? More importantly, what will it do to the state of mind of the team when their trump gets hammered? It's the difference between taking the initiative and winning or playing catch-up. It's the fundamental mistake all other teams make against the Aussies. They pick the best bowler (Warnie in the past, McGrath now) and just keep them out then they try to minimise the damage caused by them and try attacking the others. The Aussies keep winning because they SPECIFICALLY target the best player in the opposition and try to find a way to get them because there is ALWAYS a way. It makes for more attractive cricket and better (in general) results. It doesn't work every time (Sachin in India and Lara in the WI in 1999 for example) but it works most times. For example, look at Gary Kirsten's and Alan Donald's records against Aus home and away; Andy Flower's record against Aus; Jayasuriya and de Silva's record against Aus etc.

You don't win consistently by accepting that a team will beat you in one aspect of a game. You might win some but you certainly won't win consistently. Someone might be bowling well and you have to accept that in a game but you don't have to accept it before they even bowl a ball or pick up a bat. You play each ball on it's merits. It's defeatist attitudes like that which result in Glenn McGrath's 6-24 against the West Indies, even though he didn't bowl exceptionally well. The West Indies had just convinced themselves that they couldn't play him and batted accordingly.

In short, you have to make the opposition's champion feel like they're in a contest. Give them the attitude that "Yeah, we know you batted well against Team X but that was them and then; this is us and now. It's a whole different ball-game." You should never say "Well we know you're batting/bowling well so we'll just minimise the damage you cause." You won't win many games that way.

 

[full_length]

I agree with that, and especially with McGrath. Its been seen several times with this Australian team that when they are put under pressure they dont exactly react well. They are not used to seeing a team more aggressive and fearless than them. Even their fielding seems to fall away.

Just two examples would be an ICC knockout match against India where the Indians seemed to take an approach that they didnt even care if they lost- they just had to smack the aussie bowlers all around the park. Sachin was, i swear, playing with anger. The aussies completely lost it on the field; you could see them visibly nervous. Ofcourse I was delighted. Couldnt help feeling that the bullies when collared dont really know what to do.
McGrath had no answer to an adventurous Abdur Razzaq either.

Like all people, the 'great' players are also vulnerable to pressure. That is exactly why players like Sachin and Lara manage to get three or four boundaries in a row so many times. They hit a good ball for four, and then the bowler, no matter how good, bowls shorter to be pulled, then bowls full to be driven, and then drifts down leg to be flicked. These chaps are aggressive, and it works for them. They were good enough to get the good ball for four, but an adventurous player could achieve the same results, maybe in more modest proportions, if he took on the bowler.

While you could say that getting a good bowler away for lesser than your runrate is alright because the poorer bowlers are likely to be the ones punished more, it shouldnt be your intention!
When you see a Mark Waugh rolling his arm over, you gotta prepare to hit him out of the attack. But if you see McGrath running in, you should still try and make your chances. That's the way the Aussies get beaten.

Laxman as opener- No. One solid reason really is that he doesnt want to be. If he agrees to open and screws up in a match he'd immediately be full of self-doubt which the team cant afford. At any rate, makeshift solutions aren't good enough when you have this kind of talent in the run: Sehwag, Jaffer, Kaif, Badani, Yuvaraj, Mongia, Das, Ghambir. If they cant find a good opener from these (very good) batsmen, they lack in man-management! Laxman is good at no. 6 (and the new ball is also taken then anyway..) or any spot in the middle order.

Actually I'd like Dravid to come in at no. 6. What are your thoughts on that?

 

[full_length]

On the Ashes, I really look forward to seeing Trescothick bat.

Only i'd probably have to wait and watch the videos again.

On the Aussie side, it will be fun to watch them thrash all the negativism out of the english side in a hurry
An Ashley Giles won't survive for long.. if at all he gets through the last test at Oval!
The only way to beat these aussies is to make them unsure of themselves. They dont seem to play well defensively nowadays. Somehow, whenever I see Steve Waugh spread out the field, I almost see Australia losing atleast the battle, if not the war (someone always bails that side out!).

Do the english even know what side they're going to field?

Won't MacGill ever get in the Aussie side..
Not very long back Waugh said he'd play two leggies if he thought they were good enough only to quickly back off..

People were talking of Simon Katich getting into the side as a regular some day. Is he anywhere in the picture?

 

[Anil]

Trescothick, Vaughan, Butcher, Hussain, Thorpe(will he tour or will it be Crawley?), Stewart and Flintoff make a impressive batting lineup. However, bowling wise, an England at full strength(Gough, Caddick(Tudor), Hoggard, Flintoff & Giles) cannot match up to the Aussie attack(McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Lee & Bichel). The Aussie fielding is also miles ahead of the English one.

So, ultimately, whatever team England puts together, Australia in Australia is a formidable proposition and it will be nothing less than a miracle if England are able to even draw the series.

 

[luckyeddie]

I listened with interest to Rod Marsh today whilst watching the England v India U-19 game.

He was intimating that there could be a very close tie-up this winter between the academy and the Ashes tour.

The reason he was giving was that nowadays, tours seem to be much more compact than 'in the old days' - far fewer first-class games for your backup players to cut their teeth in and the like.

It may well be that there will be no reserve wicket-keeper named in the tour squad, but in the event of Stewart getting injured or going walkabout (well, it is Australia) the academy keeper will be called up into the test team (Foster, presumably).

He was also talking about Simon Jones's 'problems' (I presume the 'falling away' of his head at the point of delivery), so my guess is that Jones will be academy-bound too.

 

[scorpio]

Ok..despite my views ..this is what the team will most probably look like.

Trescothick
Vaughan
Hussain
Butcher
Ramps (NO ALTERNATIVE)
Stewart
Flintoff
Gough
Caddick (HE WILL FAIL I AM VERY SURE...BUT NO CHOICE I GUESS)
Hoggard/Tudor
Giles/Jones/Harmison (DEPENDS ON Conditions)

Might change if they want a extra batsman.