England's Future XI

[PY]

Can't remember if it's been done since the summer but who would be in your top England team for one year into the future?

1. Marcus Trescothick
2. Michael Vaughan*
3. Mark Butcher
4. Ed Smith
5. Kevin Pietersen
6. Geraint Jones+
7. Andy Flintoff
8. Simon Jones
9. Gareth Batty (only promising young-ish spinner I can think of)
10. Steve Harmison
11. James Anderson

Discuss

 

[Neil Pickup]

I'm assured that this is for Winter 2004/05

ME Trescothick
*MP Vaughan
MA Butcher
GP Thorpe
KP Pietersen
A Flintoff
+CMW Read
AF Giles
SP Jones
SJ Harmison
JM Anderson

Don't bother putting Mark Lawson in the team, Chris.

 

[Rich2001]

9. Gareth Batty (only promising young-ish spinner I can think of)

James Treadwell of Kent could well be in the running by then. At the moment he is a very promising player and been sent to the acadmey 3 times in a row now.

He also has the fact he can bat in his favour he hit a few 100's for our 2nds while opening, and hit some usfull runs down the order for the first's.

And probley most important all for the CW Community is this guy flights the ball so much he needs air clearance before each ball - Not only that but even if his going for runs he never changes his approach.

In fact just thinking about it there are actually quite a few I can think of who have shown promise this season.

 

[PY]

Not many have been mentioned in the England frame though. There are obviously some but I haven't really been able to keep up on which are the most promising.

Guess this thread is about increasing my knowledge of younger players.

 

[Langeveldt]

My two cents

1.ME Trescothick
2.MP Vaughan
3.MA Butcher
4.GP Thorpe
5.KP Pietersen
6.D Fulton
7.A Flintoff
8.GO Jones
9.R Johnson
10.J Anderson
11.MJ Hoggard


1. No point in putting a spinner in if apart from Giles there arent any...

2. Ill pessimistically add that Simon Jones will never be at his previous best, a thought suggested by my coach who himself played county cricket...

3.Jones Slightly over Read, and Fulton over Smith eye permitting...
so Pietersen will be qualified?

 

[PY]

so Pietersen will be qualified?

According to cricinfo, he will be available at the end of the 2004 domestic season but this isn't confirmed.

Not sure how well Pietersen bowls, his record isn't great but you only have 4 bowlers mate!!!!

One of whom is Frederick.

 

[Rich2001]

and Fulton over Smith eye permitting...

I think personally as much as I would love to back Fults he wont be seen in the England side now, there are too many batsman around now with their names in the frame for a guy like Fults to get back near the side.

Bowling is where England don't know what's going on the batting is set and will only need minor alterations in the next year.

Espically when you think he had that blinding summer and didn't even get the 12th man's job and along with Saggers 4 seasons as one of the best bowlers in the game and Smith who basically destoryed everyone only just got a call and was dropped stright away, doesn't give a player much hope does it? Lets hope Jones takes his chance, but then he will probley just get compliants that the runs were scored vs Bangladesh and hardly proves anything.

As for his eye it's basically fine now, he had a 2nd op at the season end to do something but overall it's fine his been batting ok all season and still attacks the pull so I don't think his confidence has been knocked to badly. I heard he would never have 20/20 vision but he said a few times that it has recovered better than expected, so that's good.

 

[marc71178]

For me

Vaughan
Trescothick
Butcher
Thorpe / Hussain
Collingwood
Flintoff
Read
Giles
Hoggard
Harmison
Anderson

Tail looks a bit stretched, but another batsman would be tricky to put in.

Not gone for untried players as nobody knows what they can and can't do.

 

[Mr. P]

Can't remember if it's been done since the summer but who would be in your top England team for one year into the future?

1. Marcus Trescothick
2. Michael Vaughan*
3. Mark Butcher
4. Ed Smith
5. Kevin Pietersen
6. Geraint Jones+
7. Andy Flintoff
8. Simon Jones
9. Gareth Batty (only promising young-ish spinner I can think of)
10. Steve Harmison
11. James Anderson

Discuss

I agree with this. A good side, and relieved someone has the common sense not to include giles.

 

[Richard]

For me, I'll wait until Sri Lanka, but Harmison is a tried and failed. Unless he changes something he's never going to be a Test-standard bowler. He hardly ever moves the ball and unless you do you aren't going to get good batsmen out that often.
I also simply don't see the point in picking a fingerspinner in the England-regular side. None of the Test-grounds in England, and not many outside the subcontinent and West Indies, offer sufficient assistance in their typical wickets to warrant the inclusion of any fingerspinner. Robert Croft is IMO England's best spinner and his record in England is dreadful. So play him when you go to Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, West Indies, India, and no-one when you play anywhere else.
I'd much prefer see Geirant Jones in the Test-side to Read. Jones is clearly a better batsman ATM and though Read is an excellent 'keeper Jones is also a good one and perfectly up to the standards required in Test-cricket.
My bet for a first-choice Test XI in 2004 would be:
Butcher
Trescothick
Hussain
Vaughan (always believed he's better at four and even more so now he's captain)
Thorpe
Jones
Flintoff (probably)
Caddick
Johnson
Hoggard
Anderson
I still hope Caddie will make it back as he's a fantastic bowler and it would be a shame to see him go out on an injury.

 

[Craig]

I dont know if Caddick is good enough for number 8.

I tried unsuccesfully a few times in making point about playing five bowlers, but I got asked why is the point in playing five bowlers as what can they do what four bowlers cant and the need for vairtey.

 

[Craig]

For me, I'll wait until Sri Lanka, but Harmison is a tried and failed. Unless he changes something he's never going to be a Test-standard bowler. He hardly ever moves the ball and unless you do you aren't going to get good batsmen out that often.

And he needs to improve his sem position.

 

[marc71178]

Butcher
Trescothick
Hussain
Vaughan (always believed he's better at four and even more so now he's captain)
Thorpe
Jones
Flintoff (probably)
Caddick
Johnson
Hoggard
Anderson

Why move our best number 3 and best opener away from their positions?

Jones at number 6 would be strange when he bats at 7 or 8 for Kent most of the time. I certainly wouldn't select him ahead of Read anyway.

 

[marc71178]

I tried unsuccesfully a few times in making point about playing five bowlers, but I got asked why is the point in playing five bowlers as what can they do what four bowlers cant and the need for vairtey.

Well what is the point of playing 5 similar bowlers then? Do enlighten us.

What does the 5th bowler add to an attack that the previous 4 dont have when they're all similar?

 

[Neil Pickup]

When you play five bowlers with the same kind of action then it's for the most part a waste of time. However, five bowlers that were, say, an offie, a leggie, two right arm seamers and a left arm seamer, then there's not an issue.

If you watched the Headingley Test, you should have been able to work that out, and also that we need Harmison.

Switching Butch, Nasser and Vaughan around is idiocy at best, and why half a season is enough to proclaim Jones as a better test bat than Flintoff is beyond me.

 

[Craig]

Well what is the point in playing a finger spinner who wont be effective on un spinner friendly wickets?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

un spinner friendly wickets

Interesting turn of phrase.

 

[Richard]

Interesting turn of phrase.

All right, wickets that don't suit spin, then.
Personally I don't think there is any point in picking fingerspinners in England as none of the Test-grounds regularly produce wickets that offer sufficient turn to make them a threat.

 

[Richard]

A couple of mentions, of variety and the positions of Butcher, Hussain and Vaughan:
For me it's this simple: Butcher has been an opener all his First-Class-career and Hussain has been a number-three all his. Vaughan was perfectly succesful at number-four and his limitations as an opener have actually been exposed last summer, several times he was caught behind the wicket driving on the up. Yes, he batted well in the second-innings' at the MCG and SCG last winter, but I thought elevating him to open in New Zealand was a mistake and nothing happened in 2002 to change that idea. Yes, Vaughan scored 5 centuries, but only one was chanceless, at The Oval.
Regarding variety of bowling; IMO variety is not as important as some regard it to be. Good batsmen aren't unduly troubled by a change of the pace of the bowling. On a green wicket under overcast skies, a fingerspinner is a waste of a place. In any conditions except a dusting, dustbowl wicket a fingerspinner is a waste of a place.
And right-arm\left-arm variation is pointless if the left-armer is a lesser bowler than a right-armer available.
It is as simple as this for me: you pick the bowlers who you think are most likely to get the best figures and make the biggest contribution to a win. If they're all right-arm seamers, so be it. It didn't do us any harm in 2000 when we had Cork, Caddick, Gough and White, because they're all good bowlers.

 

[gibbsnsmith]

Simple yet true in your comments, there Rich!

I am howver not sure if i agree on your comments on the left arm...

I feel that consideration should e taken on the oposition themselves, as the opposition may have batsmen who have weakness to left arm pace due to the different angles etc...