Pick a "clean slate" England team

Dello wrote:

philcric wrote:I feel England should try 6 bats + wk + 4 bowlers combination. 5 bowler policy just not working for them at the moment. Give Monty a break and take a punt with Rashid.

* Strauss
Cook
Shah
KP
Colly
????
Freddie
+ Prior
Rashid
SiBo
Harmi / Broad

Too much batting. Prior and Rashid at eight and nine is just overkill. They bat six (sometimes seven in Rashid's case) for their counties. Prior's in the side for his batting, for goodness sake.

If you're going to go with Rashid instead of Monty, then you've already strengthened the batting substantially - swapping a player who is all but a top-order batsman for a player who doesn't even know which way around to hold the bat.

6. Prior
7. Flintoff
8. Rashid
9. Broad

That's a strong lower-middle-order. Potentially the strongest England would've fielded in years, if they choose to go that route. And it still leaves scope for a five-man bowling-attack.

Yes you are right. England can afford 5 bowlers when 3 of them can potentially bat quite well. And yes Prior at #6 as he looks in better batting form than Freddie.

Strauss
Cook / Key
Shah
KP
Bopara / Colly
+ Prior
Freddie
Rashid
Broad
SiBo
Harmison / Anderson / Sajid M / Whoever

philcric wrote:

Dello wrote:

philcric wrote:I feel England should try 6 bats + wk + 4 bowlers combination. 5 bowler policy just not working for them at the moment. Give Monty a break and take a punt with Rashid.

* Strauss
Cook
Shah
KP
Colly
????
Freddie
+ Prior
Rashid
SiBo
Harmi / Broad

Too much batting. Prior and Rashid at eight and nine is just overkill. They bat six (sometimes seven in Rashid's case) for their counties. Prior's in the side for his batting, for goodness sake.

If you're going to go with Rashid instead of Monty, then you've already strengthened the batting substantially - swapping a player who is all but a top-order batsman for a player who doesn't even know which way around to hold the bat.

6. Prior
7. Flintoff
8. Rashid
9. Broad

That's a strong lower-middle-order. Potentially the strongest England would've fielded in years, if they choose to go that route. And it still leaves scope for a five-man bowling-attack.

Yes you are right. England can afford 5 bowlers when 3 of them can potentially bat quite well. And yes Prior at #6 as he looks in better batting form than Freddie.

Strauss
Cook / Key
Shah
KP
Bopara / Colly
+ Prior
Freddie
Rashid
Broad
SiBo
Harmison / Anderson / Sajid M / Whoever

That makes 7/8 form the team that played in the last test.

The rules stated 4.

With that batting line up you could swap Prior for Read.

Except he played in ICL so will be a no-goer.

Aren't England picking ICL players? Isn't that illegal?

It's not been said as such but you can bet that's the position.

JGK wrote:Aren't England picking ICL players? Isn't that illegal?

Nah, banindia said it's okay.

JKLever wrote:Moore?

Jesus wept

He's closer to the side than you might think. He was on standby for the tour to India.

I wouldn't mind Moore.

Or David Sales.

Anyone but Cook and Bell. They're wank.

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:As one or two of us have pointed out on this thread, the pressure of 400+ on the board will be far more effective in sharpening a 4 man attack than a range of 51ao to 320ao will be for 5 bowlers.

So one extra batsman will take our scores from somewhere below 320 up to 400+?

I'd like to see this batsman, whoever he is, he must be the best since Bradman in that case!

beamer - your view is a hard-headed arithmetical one, but it's not necessarily right.

As I tried to point out somewhere the other day, the present net effect of having Ian Bell at 3 (and you can potentiate that weak Bell effect with Cook currently faring so badly at 2!) is to deplete and demoralise the batting. Collingwood and Flintoff at 5 and 6 tend to get thrust into the firing line too early, with a need to hang around at all costs - against bowlers and fielders with their tails up after cheap scalps - rather than play their natural game and build on previous scores.

So one batsman can indeed start a rot.

And a replacement can, by the same token, stop it.

I am not saying Shah is a magician. And he may well fail too, especially if his entry is delayed until maximum limelight is on him. But England presently need a more solid batsman than Bell has been - not just for the runs the number 3 scores, but for the runs he can make possible for the batsmen after him. And not just for the runs he scores - but for the way he shapes up under pressure, the effect he can have on morale.

And that's why I would give Kevin the responsibility of 3, Shah at 4.

In a sentence: Cricket is only retrospectively all about arithmetic.

beamer wrote:

Big_Bad_Bob wrote:As one or two of us have pointed out on this thread, the pressure of 400+ on the board will be far more effective in sharpening a 4 man attack than a range of 51ao to 320ao will be for 5 bowlers.

So one extra batsman will take our scores from somewhere below 320 up to 400+?

It wouldn't be just about an extra batsman though. Flintoff would drop two places and Broad one, giving us a 7, 8 and 9 who together average 100 runs between them. If we could then replace the likes of Cook, Bell and Collingwood with guys who actually DO average 40 rather than the 30-odd that most of them have been contributing, plus another batsman in that ilk, we'll be doing pretty well. Not necessarily enough to guarantee 400+, but maybe enough to regularly get us 320+ in an innings, which would be a nice start. I dare say that we only ever get that nowadays when KP gets a biggie.

I think the problem is more to do with the personnel in the top 5 than what's to follow. There's just so rarely any positive intent from any of them except for KP, and they go into their shells when conditions get difficult.

We need another player who can take the game to the opposition, in 2005 we had Trescothick, Vaughan, and Strauss before he took most of the attacking shots out of his game. Ignoring Bell, who was a passenger in that Ashes series (one thing that hasn't changed!) we then had an in-form Flintoff at 6. We were even too aggressive some of the time back then, I remember commenting that we needed a Dravid or Kallis type player to balance it out, but we ultimately got away with it. Now the situation is reversed, and we badly need to introduce a couple of attacking batsmen to freshen up the line-up.

Cue for Mr Bobby?

Brass Monkey wrote:Anyone but Cook and Bell. They're wank.

Gold from mid-forum

But wise gold, or fool's gold?

Bracing to see my views on Shah (this page) beamed back at me two years later ....

Mudge's comments on Luke Wright from around the same period must have been a bit bracing too ... 'the next Pietersen'