Get the Stretcher Ready...

...Tremlett's the 12th man in place of Hoggard. He won't play, but that doesn't mean he won't trip and break his leg while running out with the drinks, or that he won't "strain a buttock" even.

Logical choice all-in-all. He's fit for the time being and has been playing. Not a great fan on his due to his injuries and too many innocuous bouncers... could be a handful on a more pacy pitch I suppose. I'd have prefered one of the Durham boys in a way.

Tremlett has weak hips but broad shoulders. He is always liable to get injured when he pivots. Compare him to the likes of Botham who were stockier but had strong shoulders and a bigger hips. SO he always performed better than his potential.

Fast bowling brutally exposes flaws in the physical structure.

On the playing side, it makes sense - he made a promising start to his Test career, bowled well in the Lions game and followed it up with a fiver for Hants.

Given that he didn't bowl in the second innings of that match with back spasms and was ruled out of the one-day game yesterday too, it does seem a bit of an odd selection to pick a guy who is surely currently injured.

A good prospect when he can get on the park - I think he's a better bowler than Broad - but can he ever stay on the park? Doubtful.

Well why should it be our 4 bowlers against their 5? I would add Tremlett to the team and get rid of one of the batsmen. I'm sure Broad could get more runs than Collingwood and Tremlett has three f/c fifties. Collingwood is averaging 9.00 in the FPT and 2.00 in the CC.

Jesus, I wouldn't pick Tremlett for his batting. He can biff a few, but he's a nine at best.

Dello wrote:Jesus, I wouldn't pick Tremlett for his batting. He can biff a few, but he's a nine at best.

So he'd bat just in front of Collingwood?