• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

England Test side for the 07 season

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
So I hope it's not too early for this sort of thread, but it's something I've been thinking of an awful lot in the last few days. There seem to be as many variables and injury/other problems as there were at the start of last season, but I can't help but feel that the WC will impact selection. I think we all know, regardless of how much difference you place on the formats, that it shouldn't really impact it at all..

What does need to be assessed is the Ashes disaster. There's no doubt we were beaten by a special side, nonetheless there were too many players short of form, match practice and such like. This isn't good enough in any Test series, and quite simply, we need to pick players who are fit, and in form.

The first issue is whether Trescothick will return. The smart money is obviously on him not featuring in an England side anytime soon, particularly not at the beginning of the season. I hope we do see him play for England again, but at the same time mistakes were made with Trescothick in the last twelve months, and they desperately shouldn't be made again. This for me means that the openers pick themselves.

Strauss - He's had a shocking winter, mixing stupid shots, bad luck and some poor form. It's a shame as it came on the back of a cracking series against Pakistan, where his captainc was very good, and his batting led from the front, with some useful tons, notably in the second dig at Headingley when everyone around him was getting out. People have speculated as to all sorts of reasons why he may have lost form - a simple explanation could possibly be that it happens. However, there could be a worry from some that he isn't as good as we thought, and was found out by the Aussies. Not sure I agree with that, and I'd back him to come up with the goods against the Windies/India this coming summer.

Cook - Like Strauss, Cook didn't have a great Ashes, but he did score a ton, which was an important breakthrough for him. He's only 22 and still has a long way to go, but he's averaging mid-40s and looks a special one. obviously he has weaknesses that have been addressed in many posts, articles and reports, but I believe these can be worked on. Many people back Cook to be the best since Boycott for England, I reckon there's possible captaincy material there as well, and he's an automatic pick now IMO. If Tresco was to return, then Cook would have to be accomodated at 3, with the middle order players battling it out.

The middle order is a more difficult one to pick. Hopefully Vaughan can come through the World Cup unscathed (after all, he may only play three games :p) and will captain the side this summer. He may or may not score runs, but his captaincy speaks for itself and he is invalubale to the team. It has been a long time out for Vaughan, it would be great to see him scoring runs again, some feel he never will hit great form again. Whether he does or not, I reckon he's a shoe-in for number 3.

Vaughan aside, a burning issue needs to be settled before the rest of the side can be picked. A bone of contention among many England fans, and Cricket fans in general, over the course of this disastrous winter, has been Flintoff batting at six. England’s best performances since the Ashes were against Pakistan at home (as well as the glorious victory in Mumbai, which we’ll discount here, as the team selection there doesn’t fit my argument). Now I’m not for a minute suggesting we should drop Flintoff. His bowling is, undoubtedly, essential to the side, I believe he would get in any side on the strength of his bowling. However, these victories were achieved with four bowlers, and there’s no reason to believe that this isn’t the best way to go against India and West Indies.

Flintoff at seven, rather than six, would be an exciting prospect. There’s no doubting that Flintoff is not as good a batsman as Adam Gilchrist, but the thought of Flintoff coming in at seven and hitting the old ball to all parts is an exciting one for me. He also, generally, bats well with the tail. One of his finest performances with the blade came at Edgbaston in 2005, where he had a 51-run partnership with Simon Jones. Yes, this performance did come with him at six, but the point is he excelled when batting with the tail, something he would presumably do a lot of if he came in at seven.

His recent performances at six , on the other hand, have been somewhat of a liability. You can’t help but feel that moving him to seven would free him up, take further responsibility away (look at his CB series performances: very good with Vaughan at the helm, not so good with himself in charge), and ensure a strong batting line-up. Who would a tiring bowler rather bowl to? England’s latest choice for the gloves, or Andrew Flintoff?

Fletcher has even said they would have batted him at seven and played just three other bowlers, IF there were no doubts about his fitness. If there are doubts about his fitness, he shouldn’t play, it’s not Rocket Science. Therefore, I’m actually semi-confident that he will actually play at seven next summer.

Having decided that Flintoff will/should bat at seven, this frees up a space in the middle order. In theory, this makes selection pretty simple (working on the premise that Trescothick misses out). Pietersen, Collingwood and Bell. Consistency of selection is definitely a good thing, you do, though, worry that England may now be taking it a little bit too far by not dropping players who don’t perform. However, those three have done less than most to deserve being dropped. If Trescothick were to play, I’d pick Collingwood to miss out, but I reckon the selectors would opt to drop Bell.

Nonetheless, another bone of contention through the winter was the England batting order. With Vaughan back in the side at 3, the middle order needs to be decided upon, and settled (not changed halfway through a dead rubber).

Pietersen should now come in at 4, and continue to do so for the bulk of his career, unless anyone can provide a good reason as to why he shouldn’t. Too often during the Ashes he was stuck with the tail, and forced to hit out, and most of the time, get out. He deserved more than the one ton he got from the series. KP at four just makes sense.

Deciding who should play at five and six is then a little like splitting hairs, you wonder if it matters all that much. Bell had great success at six last summer, and Collingwood, a supposed batting all-rounder, is probably best off at five. It’s hard to decide what to do with Bell really, he’s opened, and batted everywhere down to six, except five. His best performances for England came at six, and as such, almost by default, he can bat there. This is the part I’m least confident about really, and wouldn’t be surprised if I’ve got it completely wrong.

The gloves have been a hot potato in recent months, and the England selectors seem to be reverting to Read by default lately. Nixon has come in for the ODIs and probably the World Cup, but would be extremely unlikely to play Test Cricket for England in his career, one feels. Pothas is a name that gets bandied around an awful lot, I haven’t seen a whole lot of him to comment, but if he is eligible and the selectors are interested, why wasn’t he picked for the CB series? Whilst selection should differ for the two formats, we all know the England selectors don’t always work like that, and if they had a new Test keeper in mind for 2007, they’d have picked him for this series (unless that’s what they’re actually doing with Nixon – but let’s keep doubting this whilst hoping not). Stephen Davies is another name mentioned, but let’s not pick a player on potential please. Let’s give hima year of County Cricket, and some A’ tours, then pick him in 2008 if he does “the biz.”

Geraint Jones is unlikely to play for England again, and after discounting all other viable options, I can’t help but feel that Read will retain the gloves. He’ll be batting at eight, if all goes to plan, and he’s certainly a capable #8. His glovework is possibly overrated, but then again, it’s as good as that of any other Test keeper. As such, I’m comfortable with him in my side.

And then it’s the bowling attack. Best in the world in late 05 according to many. Bunch of absolute clowns in late 06, according to most. The first question, for me, is do you pick Steve Harmison? He improved steadily during the Ashes, but only to the point of dragging his series average down to the 60s and turning in a couple of 5/10 sort of performances. Then again, the viable alternative: James Anderson, who had a similarly disastrous Ashes. Mind you, Anderson did turn up for the 5th test, and put in a half-decent showing. This was another case of playing someone who blatantly was not match-fit. Anderson was looking better and better in the CB series (though he generally is a better one-day bowler than Test bowler) until injury struck again, and I do believe fitness was the issue. I’d pick Anderson, not Harmison, for the first test of the summer. Harmison will give you a matchwinning performance now and again for sure, but I’d rather a bowler who was consistent.

Speaking of consistency, Hoggard is an automatic pick, and though rarely spectacular, is one of the world’s most consistent pace bowlers. Not much more to say on that really, nothing much more needs saying.

The fourth bowling spot goes to arguably the most popular cricketer in England at the moment, Monty Panesar. He didn’t have a great Ashes, but he was reasonably solid. He still has improvements to make but is the best spin bowling option for England. It has turned out to be a fallacy that he’s the worst batsman of all-time, and his fielding is coming on. He’s not the next Shane Warne, but he is good enough, at least for now.

Please note that Plunkett and Mahmood have not been considered.*

All in all, after quite a lot of time thinking about it, not much gets changed. I don’t believe we have become a bad team overnight, and as such, drastic changes are not necessary. Nonetheless, now that we’ve lost the Ashes we can stop acting like everything that won us the Ashes is law, and start playing to our strengths. Fletcher is a big believer in team balance, nothing will give us more balance than Flintoff at 7, with Bell and Collingwood, and I suppose Pietersen, bowling the fill-in overs. We can stay at number two in the world, which has to be our initial aim, as number one is years away. But if we play to our strengths, I still believe we can beat anyone at home. The team I believe we will, or perhaps a mixture of will and should, pick, can cause the West Indies, and India, great difficulty this summer.

My Team for England’s 1st Home Test of 2007

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan*
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Flintoff
Read
Panesar
Anderson
Hoggard

*EDIT - I'm also working on the assumption of Jones missing the start of the season. Even if he gets fit, he could do with 2-3 months of soild county cricket first.
 
Last edited:

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
What's the news on Simon Jones? If he can get fitness, he would be absolutely vital. Surely by the time the next test rolls around, he would be in contention again?
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Got a bit rushed towards the end. If he's fit, obviously I'd have him rather than Anderson.
 

pasag

RTDAS
Very well written GIMH. The bowling part of the team doesn't fill me with confidence though. Also I doubt Vaughan will be there, that guy knows how to injure himself and he'll have plenty of chances starting tomorrow. I wouldn't write off Trescothick or Harmison just yet although they both have heaps to prove if they ever want to represent England again.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Very well written GIMH. The bowling part of the team doesn't fill me with confidence though. Also I doubt Vaughan will be there, that guy knows how to injure himself and he'll have plenty of chances starting tomorrow. I wouldn't write off Trescothick or Harmison just yet although they both have heaps to prove if they ever want to represent England again.
Cheers.

I'm certainly not writing Harmison off, but I don't think he should be in a 4-man attack on merit, at this point in time. As you say, he has heaps to prove if he wants to represent England again.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Was reading through that, putting my team into my head as I did it.

Then I got to the bottom of your post and saw you'd already selected the team for me!
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
Rumour has it that Foster will be wicketkeeper. The actual team could in part be dependent on whether or not Fletcher leaves after the World Cup.
 

gordoninports

Cricket Spectator
I think its very hard at this stage to tell how the Eng team will shake out for 2007.

IMO a lot depends on whether Duncan Fletcher remains as coach. And how they go in the World Cup.
 

Pup Clarke

Cricketer Of The Year
My England Test Side for 07 season

Andrew Strauss
Alastair Cook
Michael Vaughan
Kevin Pietersen
Ian Bell
Paul Collingwood
Andrew Flintoff
Chris Read
Steve Harmison
Monty Panesar
Matthew Hoggard
 
Last edited:

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
My England Test Side for 07 season

Andrew Strauss
Alastair Cook
Michael Vaughan
Kevin Pietersen
Ian Bell
Paul Collingwood
Andrew Flintoff
Chris Read
Steve Harmison
Monty Panesar
Matthew Hoggard
How rare do Harmison's good performances have to get before you'd consider dropping him then?
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
My Team for England’s 1st Home Test of 2007

Strauss
Cook
Vaughan*
Pietersen
Collingwood
Bell
Flintoff
Read
Panesar
Anderson
Hoggard

*EDIT - I'm also working on the assumption of Jones missing the start of the season. Even if he gets fit, he could do with 2-3 months of soild county cricket first.
Well written and well argued, if I may say so. And your XI is identical to mine, which helps. My only issues are about the keeper - it was interesting to read the comment about Foster being lined up to return - and whether Joyce will come into the frame if he continues to make runs for the oneday side. Presumably Collingwood would stand down in that case, although his bowling should be handy if we're only playing four bowlers. Like you, I can't see that Tresco or S Jones will be OK by the middle of May.
 

Pup Clarke

Cricketer Of The Year
How rare do Harmison's good performances have to get before you'd consider dropping him then?
Harmison may have on and off days but I'd still have him in my test team.Allright he didn't bowl well in the Ashes but he gets back to nearing his best he's worth persisting with for a couple more years before he finally retires.His attitude stinks though.
 

UncleTheOne

U19 Captain
Harmison may have on and off days but I'd still have him in my test team.Allright he didn't bowl well in the Ashes but he gets back to nearing his best he's worth persisting with for a couple more years before he finally retires.His attitude stinks though.
When was he last at his best? He's had one good test this year. Old Trafford v Pakistan, and despite his very impressive figures he didn't even bowl very well, it was a nasty bouncy pitch vs a placid Pakistan batting line up. He doesn't deserve to play for England for a long time.
 

Pup Clarke

Cricketer Of The Year
When was he last at his best? He's had one good test this year. Old Trafford v Pakistan, and despite his very impressive figures he didn't even bowl very well, it was a nasty bouncy pitch vs a placid Pakistan batting line up. He doesn't deserve to play for England for a long time.
If Harmison actually gets a kick up the backside instead of a hug from Freddie he can still be a very good bowler IMO.They have to treat Harmison differently and make him fight for his spot which might bring the best out of him.
 

UncleTheOne

U19 Captain
If Harmison actually gets a kick up the backside instead of a hug from Freddie he can still be a very good bowler IMO.They have to treat Harmison differently and make him fight for his spot which might bring the best out of him.
He's a lost cause from what I've seen, whether you kick him up the backside or try to be his mate he's going to end up bordering on useless. A four man attack and a fit Simon Jones could spell the end of Harmy, but I don't see it happening.
 

Perm

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
GIMH, I agree with the sside you have picked. Strauss and Cook are England's best openers since Trescothick is still not in good health and the middle order is pretty strong with all of those players being assured of their spots, until Ed Joyce or Owais Shah put in performances that demand selection and one of Bell/ Collingwood lose their form. Flintoff at #7 is the best place for him, and I think everyone on these forums agree on this point. Read deserves an extended run as the WK and the bowling attack, while lacking the edge that Simon Jones provides is decent. The only concern I have is that Flintoff may get overbowled in a 4-man attack which means Pietersen, Bell and Collingwood would have to get through a few overs.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Good stuff, GIMH. Not as boringly-long as my 2003-2007-ODI analysis either. ;)

I've had similar thoughts on most. I'd especially say :clapping: on the Strauss thing. People are always likely to read too much into X's lack of runs. As you say - no-one does well all the time - especially when they get 3 bad decisions in 3 innings. There's always bound to be "ah, he was worked-out by the best" but is that really true? There was no consistency in his dismissals (other than the 3 bad-decision ones). All I'd say Strauss really did wrong this winter was went into The Ashes with the "must attack" pre-formulated idea. I never, ever think such attitudes are a good idea, especially when you're saying "must attack" against bowlers as accurate as McGrath, Clark and Warne.

As regards the wicketkeeping situation - IMO the most deserving candidate is currently James Foster, I'm amazed I'd forgotten about him. Never thought he deserved much praise for his batting in 2001\02, but part of that was just because he'll never, ever be Alec Stewart (and let's face it - the chances of another Alec for us are about the same in timescale as the chance of another Warney for Aus). I quite agree with what you say about Steven Davies, he's a damn promising player, but not ready yet, and I thank God he wasn't picked for the CB Series (with his one-day average of 11 or something). I simply don't ever see either Jones or Read being Test successes, and Foster has hardly hurt his chances with his First-Class form the last 3 seasons. I'd have to say I'd go with him as long as he scores a few runs at the start of 2007.

The biggest contention, of course, is the injured players. Still, no-one seems to have a clue about the S Jones situation, and as such it's best to presume he's still out. Vaughan I genuinely hope will come through the WC, will start next summer as captain and number-three\four batsman, and will score runs as he did in 2002 and 2004 against the same opponents. I feel Vaughan has unfinished business as far as batting, never mind captaincy, is concerned. To date, he STILL hasn't broken the Curse Of The Ashes-Winning Captain - the last England captain to win another Test after captaining a victorious Ashes was Raymond Illingworth (if you say that Brearley didn't win another after the last of his 3 Ashes wins), in 1971. I'd like to see him do that, and I'd also like to see him conquer his poor form of 2004\05 (albeit he got lots of good deliveries that series) and especially 2005 and 2005\06 (though he played just 1 Test as a non-opener in the latter). I feel he has it in him to do it, and to captain England hopefully for another 12-18 months at least. Sadly, though, I can't see his career being ended by anything other than another breakdown. :( It's just a case of when.

As regards Trescothick, I genuinely hope and believe he can get ready for the start of this summer. If so, for me he has to replace Cook. As you say - Cook is 22 and could quite conceivably be around for another 15 years. Best since Boycs? They said that about Atherton, and while he was far better than most seem to rate him, he was certainly never a Boycott. But I do feel Cook can be superb. If he has to wait another 2 years, it's no tragedy. And if Collingwood continues his poor form of the last 3 Tests, he can go and Cook can come in at three with Vaughan four and Pietersen five.

I agree with what you say about the bowling-attack, if purely because we currently have more batsmen demanding a place than we do bowlers. MSP will, pretty much beyond doubt, start (there was far more equality in his and Udal's cases last summer than there currently is with him and Giles and he still got in without any real argument). Hoggard and Flintoff, too. But I just can't shake the feeling that Harmison will also. I don't disagree that he deserves to be dropped, and as just about everyone knows I've simply never thought he was actually all that good. Even after 7-12, and even after the first 7 Tests of 2004. But I still can't see any more than an outside chance of him being fit and not lining-up at Lord's, and I think that's a reality that needs to be accepted by us all every bit as much as that equally stupid reality that England selectors sometime struggle to differentiate between game-forms.

For me, Bell at six is simply the sensible option. Though really, five probably won't be too different.

In summation, my side - based on sort of a comination of accepted-realities and hopefulness (accepted realities such as "Simon Jones at any given time will not be fit"; "Stephen Harmison will play for England where available"):
Trescothick
Strauss
Cook
Vaughan
Pietersen
Bell
Foster
Flintoff
MSP
Harmison
Hoggard
It's hard - I don't really think there's much chance at all of Flintoff batting below Foster, but IMO if he plays he has to get a fair shot, and Flintoff's batting has purely and simply - rather like Harmison's bowling - never really convinced me. That's not to say he's never played well (while I'd say Harmison has never really bowled extraordinarily well, even in the 7 matches of superness IMO it was far more bad batting than good bowling), he certainly did in 2003, 2005 and in India in 2005\06. Foster, however, is compact of technique and seems, now, to possess the hunger for runs. Even if he's only a tide-over until Davies comes in, I'd go for it.

Sorry about t' length of ' post - kinda a long-starter-needs-a-long-reply for mine.

Oh - and I'd certainly have yours as a shoo-in for this week's Afridi. :)

EDIT: I forgot to mention - IMO more important than any of the players is the coach. If England don't keep Duncan Fletcher it'll be a triumph of stupidity, mass-indignation-ism ("how DARE you not pick our new national hero!" Err, even if he HAS done no more than have 3 good Tests, as Ashley Giles did in 2004?) and general lack of keeping-the-head-in-a-crisis. Duncan Fletcher is possibly the best thing EVER to happen to English cricket and to suggest we're better-off without him is to show a dismal ignorance of the facts. Even if Bob Woolmer can somehow be lured (and he said he was fed-up with the treadmill 4 years ago), when was the last time a non-Australian had a really good stint with his own national team? And are there any foreigners who immidiately stand-out and say "appoint me"?

David Houghton?

(That last line WAS sarcastic, BTW)
 
Last edited:

Top