Read this

[Barney Rubble]

Paul Collingwood has 100 first class wickets. I certainly think he could do a job, especially on a helpful track. Problems arise when Simon Jones returns though - you'd end up with Flintoff at 6 again or you'd have to drop Harmison...

There would also be the option of picking Dalrymple to bat at #6 and be used as a second spinner.

IMO Dalrymple isn't an option. He's not a good enough batsman or bowler for Test cricket, he's just a fill-in all-rounder at ODI level.

 

[AussieDominance]

Pick Gilo

 

[Goughy]

It doesn't, but surely the wicket keeper should be picked primarily on his skill behind the stumps. If the England line up can't carry a #7/#8 who averages 20, then the problem with the side is not the wicket keeper, but the batsmen above him.

Why not play three specalist bowlers, and Flintoff if the balance of their batting line-up is such a problem?

I will always disagree with the first point. For test cricket there is a basic competancy required and then its all about the batting. Subjective keeping opinions would only come into play if there was little to no difference in batting.

Its about putting the best team on the field and giving you the best chance of winning.

If I was England selecter I would highlight all the keepers I thought were good keepers and then pick the best batsman of the bunch. Evaluating minor differences in keeping skill is far too subjective to be given too much importance.

I cant beleive how many people here (not directed at anyone in particular) fail to understand how important batting depth is. Cricket is a team game and batting depth is so very important. Just look at Pollock, he is SAs regular #8 and given responsibility today he did the business.

The difference between a good total and a collapse can often be 1 partnership and it is imperitive in order to be a quality team that the late-mid order and tail save and win Tests with the bat.

The type of thinking that expects nothing from the 7,8,9 with the bat is the reason why England cannot be consistently good.

As for the last point, Ive been advocating it for a long time.

Also, for me, Read is not good enough to be a test player. Neither is Jones. Toss them on the fire and start again. No point re-enforcing failure.

 

[silentstriker]

I will always disagree with the first point. For test cricket there is a basic competancy required and then its all about the batting. Subjective keeping opinions would only come into play if there was little to no difference in batting.

Its about putting the best team on the field and giving you the best chance of winning.

If I was England selecter I would highlight all the keepers I thought were good keepers and then pick the best batsman of the bunch. Evaluating minor differences in keeping skill is far too subjective to be given too much importance.

I cant beleive how many people here (not directed at anyone in particular) fail to understand how important batting depth is. Cricket is a team game and batting depth is so very important. Just look at Pollock, he is SAs regular #8 and given responsibility today he did the business.

The difference between a good total and a collapse can often be 1 partnership and it is imperitive in order to be a quality team that the late-mid order and tail save and win Tests with the bat.

The type of thinking that expects nothing from the 7,8,9 with the bat is the reason why England cannot be consistently good.

As for the last point, Ive been advocating it for a long time.

Also, for me, Read is not good enough to be a test player. Neither is Jones. Toss them on the fire and start again. No point re-enforcing failure.

I'm coming around to this view. Before, I thought I would just pick the best keeper (except for special talents like Gilly).