Ok, I know this test is only 30 minutes old.....

But how about-

Cook
Bell/Denly/Godleman
Shah
Pietersen
Collingwood(c)
Carberry
Ambrose+
Broad
Sidebottom
Tremlett
Panesar

....for the first test at Lords in 2 months time? I've had enough of this crap. How stupid, arrogant, and naive does Paul Collingwood's "But we all average 40+, we're great" comment look now? Fool.

Get a grip. Just because the England Test side are playing like crap doesn't suddenly make Joe Denly and Billy Godleman ready for promotion.

They've got one full season each under their belts...

I couldn't think of any other opening batsmen who are in the mix.

Trescothick.

How about Denly's opening partner and captain at Kent Bobby Key?

He's only 28 - why are we writing off blokes coming into the prime of their careers and giving their places to kids who haven't even done two seasons of cricket?

Carberry can open too.

No. He wont play for England again after his latest tour pull-out.

Ed Joyce shouldn't be written off either. Not an ODI opener, but has shown enough class to suggest he could be the Thorpe style leftie we've so badly needed in the middle order.

Henry wrote:No. He wont play for England again after his latest tour pull-out.

I know
Just wish he could play IN England!

This surely has to be the end for Strauss.

Demelza wrote:

Henry wrote:No. He wont play for England again after his latest tour pull-out.

I know
Just wish he could play IN England!

They might be desperate enough to start considering him for home matches only at this rate.

Dello wrote:Get a grip. Just because the England Test side are playing like crap doesn't suddenly make Joe Denly and Billy Godleman ready for promotion.

They've got one full season each under their belts...

Works for many other sides ...

New Zealand have taken a gamble with young Southee and look what he's done in his first test.

HH_pink wrote:

Dello wrote:Get a grip. Just because the England Test side are playing like crap doesn't suddenly make Joe Denly and Billy Godleman ready for promotion.

They've got one full season each under their belts...

Works for many other sides ...

Yeah I don't understand those who don't believe in youth and would rather go for 30-year-olds who have been tried and found wanting before. Of course that can pay off occasionally, Sidebottom a prime example, but players - particularly batsmen - can often be better off learning their trade at the top level rather than developing bad habits from county cricket for years. There's not much to be scared of in the current crop of world bowlers, if a player has the raw talent he's got a good chance of succeeding.

Henry wrote:New Zealand have taken a gamble with young Southee and look what he's done in his first test.

And he's just come back from a Man of the Series performance at the under 19 World Cup.

Godleman played in the World Cup too. Didn't pull up many trees...

beamer wrote:

HH_pink wrote:

Dello wrote:Get a grip. Just because the England Test side are playing like crap doesn't suddenly make Joe Denly and Billy Godleman ready for promotion.

They've got one full season each under their belts...

Works for many other sides ...

Yeah I don't understand those who don't believe in youth and would rather go for 30-year-olds who have been tried and found wanting before. Of course that can pay off occasionally, Sidebottom a prime example, but players - particularly batsmen - can often be better off learning their trade at the top level rather than developing bad habits from county cricket for years. There's not much to be scared of in the current crop of world bowlers, if a player has the raw talent he's got a good chance of succeeding.

If you continually turn to kids when things aren't going well, you end up with a side in permanent transition. A couple of poor series from some of the young players and the same thought process would be to get some other younger players in to replace them. And so on. How can the side possibly progress?

I don't think the age of the players coming in has much to do with whether your team is in permanent transition. If anything it's more likely to produce a high turnover with older debutants/recalled players, who are much more likely to be ditched after two or three games if they don't perform, and in any case even if they do well may not have that many years at the top left in them.

You need a balance really. If you have an old team and a vacancy arises then go with a youngster if possible, if you're severely lacking in experience then perhaps call up someone with a few years in the game behind them.

Ramprakash!

Viv Richards

Reverse the batting order.

What was LLL saying about the smell of Napier in the morning?

lardbucket wrote:
What was LLL saying about the smell of Napier in the morning?

Something unfunny.

beamer wrote:

HH_pink wrote:

Dello wrote:Get a grip. Just because the England Test side are playing like crap doesn't suddenly make Joe Denly and Billy Godleman ready for promotion.

They've got one full season each under their belts...

Works for many other sides ...

Yeah I don't understand those who don't believe in youth and would rather go for 30-year-olds who have been tried and found wanting before. Of course that can pay off occasionally, Sidebottom a prime example, but players - particularly batsmen - can often be better off learning their trade at the top level rather than developing bad habits from county cricket for years. There's not much to be scared of in the current crop of world bowlers, if a player has the raw talent he's got a good chance of succeeding.

Show me some 21/22 year-olds who have performed consistently well over the last couple of years, and I would be right there with you. But the truth is, they don't yet have the level of performance to warrant selection.

Henry wrote:But how about-

Cook
Bell/Denly/Godleman
Shah
Pietersen
Collingwood(c)
Carberry
Ambrose+
Broad
Sidebottom
Tremlett
Panesar

....for the first test at Lords in 2 months time? I've had enough of this crap. How stupid, arrogant, and naive does Paul Collingwood's "But we all average 40+, we're great" comment look now? Fool.

Have you just put the names into a hat and drawn them out at random?

A mass culling of our top 6 isn't going to work. They are all test standard players but they need to be under pressure for their place.

It's all very well not going back to the 1990's way of dumping players after 2 tests if they don't score a triple hundred but we've gone the other way where they've got complacent.

Bring in Shah for one of the top 6 bar KP and go from there...

Shah for Strauss infact, who hadn't warranted his recall in the first place.

JKLever wrote:A mass culling of our top 6 isn't going to work. They are all test standard players but they need to be under pressure for their place.

It's all very well not going back to the 1990's way of dumping players after 2 tests if they don't score a triple hundred but we've gone the other way where they've got complacent.

Bring in Shah for one of the top 6 bar KP and go from there...

Shah for Strauss infact, who hadn't warranted his recall in the first place.

And, perhaps, Key for Bell - but neither would add much to the standard of fielding. On name not yet mentioned is James Hildreth, he might be worth a punt in the ODI side to start with.

I think at this stage, barring any second innings heroics from either, I'd send Strauss and Bell back to county cricket for a while, and send a message out to the others that they can't take their places for granted. Perhaps get a bit of balance in the replacements by picking one youngster and one with a bit more experience (probably Shah).

Although if we lose this match then Vaughan will come under pressure to resign the captaincy, which would immediately call into question his place in the side as well. But a couple of changes would be enough I think.

Dello wrote:

lardbucket wrote:
What was LLL saying about the smell of Napier in the morning?

Something unfunny.

As a film graduate I thought you'd quite enjoy it.